/13
original UK submission and the substitution of a completely
different one.. To this we can only say that it has alway a
been made clear that we reserved the right to modify our
offers in whatever way necessary.
The reactions of the USA,
Japan and smaller donors should not, however, concern us too
much. The administrative difficulties caused for us by adopting
duty quotas is discussed in paragraph 25 below. Importers would
also object that duty quotas would cause uncertainty as to
duty payments that would face them, but against this will be
offset the considerable value of duty free entry within the
quota (which would accrue more to them than to developing suppliers)
22.
If the UK. were to opt for duty quotas on EEC Lines it would
seem reasonable, since the EEC exclude intra-Community trade and
imports from the associated states and from Morocco and Tunisia
in calculating the supplementary amounts of the quotas, for us
to exclude imports from E.F.T.A., the Irish Republic and the
Commonwealth Preference Area. The large volume of imports from
the latter would help to redress the imbalance resulting from
the small size of E.F.T.A. compared with the EEC. Total imports
into the U.K. from non-Commonwealth developing countries in
1967 of goods in SITC Sections 5-8 were 262 million (not
including imports of 47 million from Spain) and 5 per cent of
imports from other countries excluding E.F.T.A., the Irish
Republic and C.P.A., was 205 million, giving a total of 467
million. The comparable total for the EEC is 1,691 million,.
made up of imports of 1,164 million from beneficiary countries
(not including Hong Kong or Spain) together with 527 million,
equal to 5 per cent of imports from other non-Community sources.
ƒ
/although