5cjxburmr

11.22.3.2 Power to Suspend Customs Duties and Tariffs or Exempt CertainGoods. The Occupying Power may suspend customs duties and tariffs for shipment of goodsinto the occupied territory. 451 It may also exempt certain types of goods (e.g., humanitariangoods, goods for its forces) from customs duties and tariffs. 45211.22.4 Enemy Public Debts.11.22.4.1 Debts Owed to Occupied Territory. Many jurists have taken the viewthat the Occupying Power is generally not permitted to collect pre-occupation debts owed to thesovereign of the occupied territory, as it is not a party to the agreement originating the debt. 453However, the Occupying Power may collect the debts owed to the sovereign, provided that thedebts may be legitimately characterized as realizable securities that are strictly the property ofthe State (e.g., bearer instruments). 454 In addition, the Occupying Power may seize debts owedto insurgent forces. 455451 For example, Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 12, Trade Liberalization Policy, §1 (Jun. 8, 2003) (“Alltariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and allother trade restrictions that may apply to such goods, are suspended until December 31, 2003.”); CoalitionProvisional Authority Order No. 54, Trade Liberalization Policy 2004, §1 (Feb. 26, 2004) (“All customs tariffs,duties, import taxes (not including the Reconstruction Levy imposed by CPA Order Number 38), and similarsurcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq are suspended until the sovereign transitional Iraqi administrationimposes such charges following the CPA’s transfer of full governance authority to that administration.”).452 Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 38, Reconstruction Levy, §2 (Sept. 19, 2003) (“1) The followinghumanitarian goods shall be exempt from the Reconstruction Levy: … e. Goods imported to be delivered ashumanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq or in support of reconstruction of Iraq. … 2) The Reconstruction Levyshall not apply to the following persons or entities: … b) Coalition Forces;”).453 See VON GLAHN, THE OCCUPATION OF ENEMY TERRITORY 156 (“[T]he majority of jurists concur in the view thatthe occupant cannot legally collect pre-occupation debts owed to the legitimate sovereign of the territory and at thesame time act in accordance with the prevailing rules of international law.”); U.S. ARMY, THE JUDGE ADVOCATEGENERAL’S SCHOOL, CIVIL AFFAIRS MILITARY GOVERNMENT: SELECTED CASES AND MATERIALS 108 (1958) (“Thefirst paragraph of Article 53, HR (par. 403, FM 27-10), raises, rather than answers, the question whether theoccupant may collect debts due the ousted sovereign. The question is complicated by the argument that as statedebts constitute obligations between the debtors and the ousted sovereign and as occupation does not transfersovereignty, the occupant does not succeed to the privity enjoyed by the ousted sovereign. Some authorities acceptthis rationale and take the position that the occupant cannot legally collect any debts due the state. See, Von Glahn,The Occupation of Enemy Territory 156-159 (1957). Other authorities, resorting to Article 48 HR (par. 425a, FM27-10), contend that as the occupant is obliged to defray the expenses of administration of the territory, he ought tobe authorized to collect those debts falling due during the period of his occupation. See, Stone, Legal Controls ofInternational Conflict 717 (1954).”).454 Refer to § 11.18.5.3 (Public Personal (Movable) Property).455 For example, In Re, Order of Major-General Otis Requiring Smith, Bell & Co., A Banking House at Manila, toTurn Over to the American Authorities One Hundred Thousand Dollars, Held by Said House as the Property of theInsurgent Forces in the Philippines, Submitted October 10, 1899, Case No. 738, Division of Insular Affairs, WarDepartment in CHARLES E. MAGOON, LAW OFFICER, BUREAU OF INSULAR AFFAIRS, WAR DEPARTMENT, REPORTSON THE LAW OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN TERRITORY SUBJECT TO MILITARY OCCUPATION BY THE MILITARY FORCESOF THE UNITED STATES 261, 262 (2nd ed., 1902) (“It is conceded that the fund seized was intended to be used forpromoting the insurrection and that the insurgents sought to utilize the bank as a means of transfer for said funds.Under the laws and usages of war the United States may lawfully seize and retain such funds, and to that end maycompel the person having such funds, in his possession to pay over the same to the military authorities. The mostfavorable view of the conduct of the bank in attempting to perform the service rendered the insurgents herein, is to814