'File 35/86 III A. 74. Muscat Treaty' [‎150r] (318/548)

subjects cbjeut. It seems clear to me, however, that
tneir objection caimot be supported, since the payment
is & rsntal anci not a tax^
^ me payment ox tills tax^ wiiich corresponds
AriuiKx ... v n j ou-Aiis on the answer to tiie question of
ex"-
wnat exemption is conferrea by the/territoriality (see para
graph 5 above)•
{njTne fish tax t,urns on the same' principle as
oiictt. Cx (o>» except that it is possible tnat the produce
may not oe caught in Muscat territorial waters, but on
tne xiigb Seas. Part oi cnis tax, i.e. tne broicerage, seems
to be municipal.
(ij The boat tax is again a question of exterritorial
rignts. Tnere are auout 9 boats owneu, by British subjects.
(j) Vneifexxixi^ enct rKes. This is charged by the Muscat
Customs Department. Tne second paragraph of article 6 of
tne Treaty states as follows:-
"Tnis auty, once paid, snail cover, from all otner
cnarges on tne part of his highness tne Sultan, gooas of
whatever description coming from foreign countries oy sea,
whether tnese are intended for local consumption or foe
)
transmission eslewhere in bulk or otherwise, and whetuer
tney remain in tne state in wnicn tney are imported or
nave been manufactured". If this is to be read strictly
tnen it would appear tuat tne Britisn subjects are not
liable to extra weigning cnarges. On the other hand, I
believe tnat sucn cnarges are made by tne Customs Depart
ment in other countries and if sucn charges are made by
tne Indian Customs, e.g. at Karachi and Bombay, it might
be argued tnat tney are similarly applicable in Muscat.
*
7. I discussed tne question of these taxes at length
with jdis hignness tue Sultan and witn Major Watts on my
recent visit to Muscat. The Sultan contended tnat these
taxex/-