GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA. (Hansard, 25 February 1936)
HC Deb 25 February 1936 vol 309 cc271-2W
Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the Trade and Navigation Accounts the imports from the Soviet Union into Great Britain, for the nine months ended September, 1935, are recorded as £13,823,000, whereas the exports from the Soviet Union to the United Kingdom, in the same period, are recorded in the Foreign Trade and Commerce Accounts to be of a value of £10,310,000, based upon the mean rate of exchange quoted therein; and how the discrepancy of £3,500,000 arises?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

The discrepancy in question is due to the following causes:

(1) The imports are valued c.i.f., while the exports are valued f.o.b.

Statement showing the quantity and value of cotton piece goods imported into the British West Indies from the United Kingdom and Japan during the calendar year 1933 and the year ended 30th June, 1935, as far as particulars are available.
From United Kingdom. From Japan.
Quantity. Value. Quantity. Value.
1923. 1934–5. 1933. 1934–5. 1933. 1934–5. 1933. 1934–5.
Thousand linear yards. Thousand linear yards. £ £ Thousand linear yards. Thousand linear yards. £ £
Barbados 4,096 * 86,908 (a) 48,595 1,235 * 26,737 (a)610
Grenada 776 901 13,731 15,637 66 58 944 570
Jamaica 8,446 20,018 152,914 327,260 6,702 12 73,027 120
Antigua 312 413 5,788 * 26 66 448 *
Montserrat 140 146 2,810 3,263 6 82
Virgin Islands 5 (b)20 122 * *
St. Lucia 439 (b)470 8,068 (b)10,281 73 (b)25 1,599 (b)432
Trinidad and Tabago 7,348 ‡7,151 135,637 154,957 442 ‡62 5,360 728
(a) All cotton goods, excluding apparel.
(b)Inclusive of a small amount of piece goods of artificial silk.
*Not available. †Less than 500 yards. ‡Thousand square yards.
Note.—The quota system for textiles was introduced in the second quarter of 1934. Comparative figures are therefore given for the latest complete period of 12 months during which the system was in force. It should be noted, however, that imports from Japan were generally abnormal prior to, and immediately following, the actual imposition of quotas. As the legislation was made retrospective, the figures for Japan for 1934–5, shown above, cannot be taxen as indiacting the normal Japanese imports under the quota system.

(2) There is a tine-lag between export and import.

(3) The application of an average rate of exchange to the aggregate value of the trade over the whole period in question instead of the actual rates ruling when the individual entries were recorded in the trade returns.

(4) Imports from the Soviet Union, as recorded in the United Kingdom trade returns, include canned salmon from the Japanese fisheries on the Pacific Coast (which are situated in Soviet territory), whereas such exports are excluded from the trade returns of the Soviet Union.

GLOBAL ISLES COURT OF RECORD