The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Peru (White)
A–27. Embassy’s despatches 2002 of November 22 and 2042 of November 28, 1944.78 It would be appreciated if the Embassy would report on the outcome of further conversations which it may have had with the Peruvian authorities regarding the proposed 2% ad valorem import tax and the 10-centavos tax on imported tobacco products.
It is noted that Finance Minister East gave assurance that the new import tax would not conflict with international agreements but that he made no commitment with regard to the tax on tobacco products which is higher in the case of imported products than in the case of domestic products. As the Embassy is aware, these two provisions are in conflict with Articles VII and II, respectively, of the trade agreement between the United States and Peru.79
The Embassy is also requested to let the Department know whether or not the new tax measure has become effective and whether or not it has been modified in any respect. If the law has been promulgated, the Embassy should so report as soon as possible in order that publication of it may be made by the Department of Commerce.
The Embassy may, in addition, have something to report regarding the subject of the Peruvian excise taxes on tobacco products referred to in Department’s instruction no. 3741 of December 15, 1944.80
- Neither printed; these communications contained information on pending tax legislation that might adversely affect oil companies and on the contention of the Peruvian Government that no contravention of the trade agreement between the countries was intended (823.512/11–2244 and /11–2844).↩
- Department of State Executive Agreement Series No. 256; 56 Stat (pt 2) 1509.↩
- Not printed; the Department indicated that the taxes in question were discriminatory (823.61331/10–2344).↩