a Royal irada of January 4, 1934, by which Iraq becomes a party to the arrangement for the establishment of the International Office of Public Health, signed at Rome December 9, 1907.

INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONVENTION FOR AIR NAVIGATION 3

United States

The American Minister to the Netherlands informed the Secretary of State by despatch of April 10, 1934, that he had signed on behalf of the United States on April 6, 1934, the international sanitary convention for air navigation, which was opened for signature at The Hague on April 12, 1933. The convention was signed subject to two reservations as follows:

"(1) With reference to Article 61 no amendments to the Convention will be binding on the Government of the United States of America or territory subject to its jurisdiction unless such amendments be accepted by the Government of the United States of America.

"(2) The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to decide whether from the standpoint of the measures to be applied a foreign district is to be considered as infected, and to decide what requirements shall be applied under special circumstances to aircraft and personnel arriving at an aerodrome in the United States of America or territory subject to its jurisdiction."

OPIUM AND OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS

CONVENTION FOR LIMITING THE MANUFACTURE AND REGULATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS *

Iraq

The American Legation at Baghdad reported by a despatch dated February 23, 1934, that a Royal irada of January 4, 1934, was published in the official gazette of February 1, by which Iraq becomes a party to the convention for limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs, signed at Geneva July 13, 1931. Siam

By a communication dated March 9, 1934, the Secretary General of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State of the deposit of the instrument of ratification by Siam of the convention for limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs, signed at Geneya July 13, 1931. The ratification was de

posited on February 22, 1934, and was made subject to the following

reservation:

"As its Harmful-Habit-Forming Drugs Law goes beyond the provisions of the Geneva Convention and the present Convention on certain points, the Siamese Government reserves the right to apply its existing law."

It was also stated that the reservation concerning Recommendation No. VIII of the final act was withdrawn as regards Siam.

ECONOMIC

AVIATION

ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND BELGIUM FOR RECIPROCAL RECOGNITION OF CERTIFICATES OF AIRWORTHINESS FOR IMPORTED AIRCRAFT 1

By a telegram dated April 24, 1934, the American Minister to Belgium informed the Secretary of State that he had received from the Belgian Foreign Office a note dated April 23, stating that Belgium withdrew its denunciation of the agreement of October 22, 1932, between the United States and Belgium for reciprocal recognition of certificates of airworthiness for imported aircraft. The two Governments will shortly enter into negotiations with a view to supplementing the existing arrangement.

COMMERCE

PROTOCOL II OF MARCH 17, 1934, BETWEEN ITALY, AUSTRIA, AND HUNGARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC RELATIONSPROTOCOL III OF MARCH 17, 1934, BETWEEN ITALY AND AUSTRIA, COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PROTOCOL BETWEEN ITALY, AUSTRIA, AND HUNGARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS

With a despatch dated March 22, 1934, the American Embassy at Rome transmitted to the Department of State copies of the protocols between Italy, Austria, and Hungary signed at Rome March 17, 1934.2

The purpose of protocols II and III was outlined as follows in a communiqué issued at the time of signature:

"The object of the two other protocols is the development of the economic relations of Italy, Austria and Hungary on the bases of the principles established by the Stresa Conference and the Danubian Memorandum presented by Italy last September which provided for:

1

"One. The enlargement of the commercial conventions existing between Italy and Austria, Italy and Hungary, Austria and Hungary, to the end of facilitating their reciprocal exports

See Bulletin No. 54, March 1934, p. 8.

2 See also p. 4.

by developing the complementary characters of their national

economies.

"Two. The concession of preferential duties on Austrian industrial products and the conclusion of agreements between Italian and Austrian manufacturers.

"Three. The adoption of measures necessary to overcome Hungary's difficulties originating in the fall of the price of wheat.

"Four. The development of transit traffic through Adriatic ports.

"The three heads of government moreover decided that their competent ministries shall actively continue negotiations in order to permit the representatives of the said ministries of Italy, Austria and Hungary to work out details of the accords established in the above mentioned protocols. For that purpose the aforesaid representatives will meet in Rome on April 5th. The new agreements are to be completed by May 15th."

Translations of the texts of these protocols may be found in the section of this Bulletin headed "Texts of Treaties and Agreements ".

COMMERCIAL CONVENTION OF DECEMBER 11, 1902, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA 3

DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS

Florida Avocado Growers Exchange v. United States (Reedy Forwarding Company, Party in Interest)

According to a decision handed down by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals on March 19, 1934, affirming a decision handed down by the United States Customs Court, Third Division, on November 28, 1932, avocados (otherwise known as avocado pears or alligator pears) imported into the United States from Cuba are not subject to the duty of 15 cents per pound stipulated in paragraph 750 of the Tariff Act of 1930, being thus exempt by virtue of the provisions of the commercial convention of December 11, 1902, between the United States and Cuba, and of the act of December 17, 1903, chapter 1.

Articles I and II of the commercial convention of 1902, commonly referred to as the Cuban reciprocity treaty, read as follows:

"ARTICLE I

"During the term of this convention, all articles of merchandise being the product of the soil or industry of the United States which are now imported into the Republic of Cuba free of duty, and all

articles of merchandise being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba which are now imported into the United States free of duty, shall continue to be so admitted by the respective countries free of duty.

"ARTICLE II

"During the term of this convention, all articles of merchandise not included in the foregoing Article I and being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba imported into the United States shall be admitted at a reduction of twenty per centum of the rates of duty thereon as provided by the Tariff Act of the United States approved July 24, 1897, or as may be provided by any Tariff law of the United States subsequently enacted."

The act of December 17, 1903, was passed in accordance with the terms of the treaty for the purpose of giving effect thereto.

Section 316 of the Tariff Act of 1930 contains the following provision:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to abrogate or in any manner impair or affect the provisions of the treaty of commercial reciprocity concluded between the United States and the Republic of Cuba on December 11, 1902, or the provisions of the Act of December 17, 1903, chapter 1."

Section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that any domestic producer who believes that imported merchandise of the kind produced by him is not properly classified by the customs authorities or that the proper duty is not being imposed may make complaint thereof, with right of appeal to the United States Customs Court. The Florida Avocado Growers Exchange complained that instead of being imported on the free list, avocados originating in Cuba should be dutiable under paragraph 750 of the Tariff Act: "Avocados or avocado pears, also known as alligator pears, 15 cents per pound". The United States Customs Court, Third Division, disposed of the arguments of the plaintiff (Florida Avocado Growers Exchange) and adjudged that avocados imported from Cuba should remain free of duty. Upon appeal from this decision the principal contentions of the appellant were:

1st. That the commercial convention of 1902 with Cuba is invalid. and, for that reason, cannot operate to justify or require a holding that the importation involved in this case is free of duty.

2d. That even if the convention is to be regarded as valid, avocados were not free of duty under the laws of the United States and were not being imported from Cuba into the United States free of duty at the time of the effective date of the convention, and for that reason the provisions of article I of the convention do not require the free admission of avocados.