"ملف 8/4 I محظورات: استيراد الأفيون إلى البحرين" [و‎‎١‎٦] (٤٦١/٣٧)

HOME OFFICE,
White Hall, S.W. 1
582,157/20 4th Februaryn 1936.
593,731/14
Dear Tomkins,
You will remember that some time ago you asked me to
look into the position in regard to the estimates in respect
of Nepal and Bahrain,
Quite shortly, the position appears to be that no
estimates are submitted in respect of either State.
When in 1930 Nepal commenced to import drugs from the
United Kingdom, vie asked that the British Envoy at the Court
of Nepal be requested to suggest to the Nepalese Government
the adoption of a procedure similar to that under the Conven
tion of 1925. This was done. (See E & 0.5563/50).
In 1931 and 1932 we agreed to issue licences for the
export of drugs to Nepal on production of a certificate. or
requisition countersigned by the British Envoy. It was also
agreed that drugs exported under this procedure shouldbe
shown in the statistics of exports furnished by the United
Kingdom to the League, as exports to Nepal. This hafc- been
done. It was also suggested, in order to prevent discrepan
cies between United Kingdom export statistics and Indian import
statistics, that India should regard these consignments as M in
transit" to Nepal. E & 0. 8955/31; E id 0.616/32; B & 0.3890/32
K A; 0. 5369/32 refer. We send the usual duplicates of the
export licences to the British Envoy, but so far he does not
appear to have endorsed and returned them. We also send
of
an extra duplicate to the Central Board^Revenue who endorse
and return their copy as if the goods were imported into India.
There is, therefore, a semblance of the import certificate
system in force betv/een Nepa3. and the United Kingdom, but no
sort of compliance with the Convention of 1931 in the matter of
returns, estimates, etc., nor can 1 find any record of any