'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Part II. J G Lorimer. 1915' [‎2603] (1120/1262)

2603
sind was objected to both by tbe Russian Government and by the Govern
ment of India. M. Nans was desirons that the importation of goods in
contraband or by unauthorised routes should be punishable^ on European
analogies^ with a fine equal to 10 times the value of the goods^ with
confiscation of the goods themselves and the means of transport^ and^ in
some cases, with imprisonment. The opposition of the Russian Govern
ment to these penalties was uncompromising and prolonged ; and
M. Naus was at one time inclined to advise the Persian Government
that they should appeal to the International Tribunal at the Hague and
lodge a claim for damages on account of the loss of warehouse and other
fees resulting from the delay. Eventually, at the instance chiefly of the
Russian Government, the penalty of imprisonment was abandoned ; and
confiscation of transport and goods became the maximum punishment
under the Reglement for importation in contraband or by unauthorised
routes. M. Naus was most unwilling to renounce the power of confiscat
ing the means of transport, the only deterrent which, in his opinion,
could be enforced against the carriers as distinguished from the owners of
goods j in the end, however, in deference to the wishes of the British
Government, he agreed that—except in the case of habitual offenders
and in certain other circumstances—the option of a fine not exceeding
£60 might be allowed when transport had become liable to confiscation,
and tbe option of a fine not exceeding the value of the goods when
goods were subject to forfeiture.
The Keglement was signed by the British Minister at Tehran on the
29th of August, 1904?, a few days after it had been accepted by the
Russian Government; and it came into force on the 1st of September
following. The concession, due to British objections, of an alternative to
the confiscation of transport and goods was, instead of being incorporated
in the text of the Reglement, embodied m a special declaration made by
M Naus at the time of signature. Sir A. Hardinge accompanied his
signature by an important^declaration, to which we shall revert* m
connection with another subject.
The Reglement was, in substance, an elaboration of the Declarations
of 1901 and 1903 ; and it is therefore unnecessary to enter in much
detail on its provisions. The liability of merchandise to import and
export dutv was defined, and the various fees were particularised which
mikt be recovered for clerical assistance, for seals, for warehouse and
bonded-warehouse accommodation, for the use of cranes, for labour, and
for surveillance, when provided by the Customs Administration. The in
troduction of goods into Persia, except at points where custom houses
qualified to receive them existed, was forbidden; the importation of fire
arms and ammunition, of coin other than gold or silver, of aniline dyes and
of seditious, irreligious and immoral publications or objects was prohibited;
the exportation of carpets dyed with aniline was also made illegal; and
power P was reserved to prevent the exportation of other articles, especially
food-stuffs, upon public grounds. Confiscation was prescnbed as the
penalty for attempting to import or export prohibited objects. The
sipioic r p—™ ^
exempt feom'payment of customs duty on objects imported for their
personal use; and their staffs also, compnsing councdlors, secretaries ,
* Yide page 2614 p ost.
Acceptance
of the
Eeglemetit
by Great
Britain, 29th
August 1904.
Substance of
the
Reglement.
Wi