페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

24510/9. Imported in 1914; 10 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing

$3. 84 Imported in 1921; 201.60 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing.

5. 24 If imported and landed at 8 cents the mark, it would cost..

12. 95 5007. Imported in 1914; 21.24 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing.

8. 16 Imported in 1921; 375 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing..

9. 75 If imported and landed at 8 cents the mark, it would cost.

24. 08 5008. Imported in 1914; 30.84 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing.

11. 84 Imported in 1921; 450 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing..

11. 70 If imported and landed at 8 cents the mark, it would cost.

27. 69 5044. Imported in 1914; 39 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing.

14. 98 Imported in 1921; 967.50 marks; discount, 5 per cent; duty, 60 per cent; landing.

25. 15 If imported and landed at 8 cents the mark, it would cost.

62. 12 The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Mr. Rafter? Mr. RAFTER. Yes, sir.

Senator WATSON. I move that the committee rise until to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee, on motion of Senator Watson, will stand adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 1.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, April 23, 1921, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

[graphic][merged small]

C

EMERGENCY TARIFF AND ANTIDUMPING.

SATURDAY, APRIL 23, 1921.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,

Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in room 310, Senate Office Building, Hon. Boies Penrose presiding.

Present: Senators Penrose (chairman), McCumber, Smoot, La Follette, Dillingham, McLean, Curtis, Watson, and Simmons.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. A quorum being present, the committee will proceed to hear Mr. B. A. Levett, of New York, who has been introduced to the chairman of the committee by Senator Calder.

STATEMENT BY MR. B. A. LEVETT, OF NEW YORK. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Levett, will you state to the committee where you reside?

Mr. LEVETT. I am a resident of New York.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your business?
Mr. LEVETT. I am an attorney at law.
The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent?

Mr. LEVETT. I am the chairman of the committee on customs service and revenue law of the Merchants' Association of New York. This is an organization, as its name indicates, composed of merchants. It represents 2,100 American manufacturers and 700 importers. We have upwards of 6,800 members. The rest of them are composed of professional men, banks, etc.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that pamphlet from which you are reading ?

Mr. LEVETT. This is a part of the brief that I presented before the Ways and Means Committee, but it needs considérable revision.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it on this same subject? Mr. LEVETT. It is on the subject of general recommendation and administrative matters, and also on the American selling price and on the dumping bill.

The CHAIRMAN. What are you going to address yourself to now?

Mr. LEVETT. I was going to speak with reference to the antidumping bill, particularly as to the accountancy provision, but on that I shall not say so much because it has been pretty well covered.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you covering ground that has been already covered before the Ways and Means Committee?

Mr. LEVETT. Not on that point.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, do not cover anything that has already been covered, and make your statement as brief as you can.

Mr. LEVETT. I would like to state that the Merchants' Association has affiliations throughout the country. We have never made any

recommendations as to rates, but we have since the McKinley bill, when we were invited by Mr. McKinley to present our views, considered that we had a right to present our views as to the administrative features of the law, having in mind the three parties in interest, the Government, the domestic manufacturers, and the importers.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that association in existence at the time of the enactment of the McKinley law?

Mr. LEVETT. Yes, sir; and Mr. McKinley invited us to present our views.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you their attorney at that time?

Mr. LEVETT. No, sir; I was not. Really, I am not their attorney; I am chairman of this committee. Personally I have been interested in the customs matters since 1897, when I was detailed down here to the Government service with Senator Aldrich. I had the pleasure of meeting you then, Mr. Chairman. Since then I have been connected with the Board of General Appraisers as Government attorney, and have represented both manufacturers and importers. The Merchants Association has no interest whatever except, as I

for the good of the United States Government, looking at the administrative clauses as they affect the three parties.

Without going into the details as to the currency proposition, I would like to express the Merchants' Association's disapproval of the provision as it appears. That matter came up before the board of directors, which, I might state, has on it two-thirds as many domestic manufacturers as it has importers. We believe that will be a very unwise provision.

Senator CURTIS. You mean the America valuation?
Mr. LEVETT. No;

I am speaking of the currency provision as to the depr ciation. The facts brought out by Mr. Doherty and others yesterday are facts that I wanted to touch upon, but they were so fully covered I will simply say that they are exactly what we ascertained in our investigation.

I might present the original letter, which was referred to esterday, addressed by Mr. J. K. Sagne, appraiser of the port of New York, to Mr. S. C. Mead, secretary of the merchants' association. That letter is in response to a communication we addressed to the appraiser, inquiring whether the value of imports in United States gold had increased since 1914, and whether the Government was getting more duty than it was at that time. The letter has been previously referred to and part of it read.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to insert it in the record ?

Mr. LEVETT. I thought possibly the committee would like to have the original letter.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted as a part of your remarks.
(The letter above referred to is as follows :)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE,

New York, N. Y., February 4, 1921.
Mr. S. C. MEAD,
Secretary the Merchants' Association of New York,

223 Broadway, New York, N. Y. SIR: Answering your letter of the 31st ultimo, submitting certain questions which you desire to be answered as specifically as possible, in order that your association may intelligently discuss matters pertaining to change in basis of valuation to American selling price and antidumping provisions with the Ways and Means Committee at their request, you are advised that the replies of this office to the submitted questions can only be in a very general way. Specific illustrations may be cited to show a wrong conclusion, but my reply represents a conclusion reached from the general conditions.

Question 1. Have the invoices coming under your observation at the port of New York during, say, the past year indicated that, generally speaking, the export price is appreciably different from the home consumption price the value returned by you for dutiable purposes?

Answer. Generally speaking, home consumption prices are not lower than export prices to the United States. In countries like Germany and Austria, where the cur. rency of the country relatively is depreciated to much greater extent than the currency of other countries as compared with the United States dollar, the home consumption price usually is lower than the export price to the United States. Under normal conditions the home consumption price usually is higher than the export price to the United States.

Question 2A, Again, generally speaking, has the price of imported articles, when figured in foreign currency, kept pace with the depreciation in the value of that currency?

Answer. Generally speaking, the price of imported articles has increased in the ratio that the foreign currency depreciated as compared with the United States dollar.

Question 2B. In other words, has the depreciation in the foreign currencies resulted in decreased duties collected?

Answer. The depreciation of foreign currency may, in certain instances, decrease the duties collected. As, for illustration:

Certain cheeses from France have increased in value in French francs over 1914 prices approximately 550 per cent. Depreciation in exchange during the same period is about 664 per cent. The present French prices converted at the approximate present exchange value of the French franc approximates an increase of 75 per cent in United States gold over prewar prices in United States gold.

Food products from Italy have increased in value in lire over 1914 prices approxiimately 600 per cent. Depreciation in exchange during the same period is about 75 per cent. The present Italian prices converted at the approximate present exchange of the lira approximates an increase of 80 per cent in United States gold over prewar prices in United States gold.

Linens from Germany have increased in value in marks over 1914 prices approximately 2,500 to 3,000 per cent. Depreciation in exchange during the same period is about 93 per cent. The present German prices converted at the approximate present exchange value of the mark approximates an increase of 58 per cent in United States gold over prewar prices in United States gold.

German chinaware selling before the war at 4 marks is now sold to the United States at $2.50, and in the home market at 60 marks. Duty is assessed on the home market value which converted into United States currency approximates 96 cents. Therefore, the selling price to the United States has increased 150 per cent over prewar prices, whereas the assessment of duty is approximately at the value prevailing before the war.

Cutlery from Germany has increased in value in marks over 1914 prices approximately 2,500 per cent. Depreciation in exchange during the same period is about 93 per cent. The present German prices converted at the approximate present exchange value of the mark average an increase of 50 per cent in United States gold over prewar prices in United States gold.

If the exchange value in United States currency is lower upon the date of exportation than at the time of purchase, with no deliveries made at the higher asking price on the date of exportation, in such instances the appraised value is at the delivered or purchased price, which represents the market value as defined, when converted at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of exportation (certification) results in lower United States equivalent.

To illustrate: An article sold at 10 marks at a time when the mark is worth 2 cents; delivered at a time when the exchange value of the mark is 1 cent; quoted price for future delivery on date of delivery 20 marks. Appraisement being made on the basis of 10 marks conversion would be made at I cent rate of exchange prevailing on date of certification of consular invoice, accepted as date of exportation. Therefore, in such an instance the depreciation in the foreign currency resulted in decreased duties collected. But, to offset this, an illustration might be made of instances where, after placing the contract, the exchange value of the currency appreciates. In such instances the Government would receive increased duties resulting from appreciation

« 이전계속 »