3.
L&R Cumer le
али
НКК 6/24
eshd. 10/10
27
Hong Kong Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
London S.W.1
30 October, 1969
во
EEC Common Commercial Policy:
2 hav
Hong Kong
D 14/11
As of course you know, the Commission have recently taken a further step in the direction of evolving an EEC common commercial policy by tabling with the Council proposals for dealing with the importation of a number of items of relevance to Hong Kong's trade with the Community. These proposals involve the imposition of annual import quotas of 2.5 million units for umbrellas and parasols and of 7.353 million pairs for canvas shoes on Hong Kong's trade in these items.
2. These quantitative restrictions (fixed at approximately the 1968 level of Hong Kong's trade with the Community) are to be imposed because France, and France alone, has maintained quotas against Hong Kong. They appear to infringe Hong Kong's rights under Article 11 of the GATT, General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions.
3. You will have seen my reply to Kenneth Christofas' letter of 10 September (both have been copied to you) in which I said that we would be discussing with you what action we might take on behalf of Hong Kong and recording the broad conclusions we have reached in this Office. In the first place we are clear that subject to Hong Kong's own views we ought to register some protest.
If we do not make representations on these items there is a danger that Hong Kong's case will go by default and such restrictions will appear as a built-in feature of the common commercial policy, extending at least over the whole range of commodities on which France has maintained import quotas. Quite what we might hope to
achieve is difficult to foresee. There seems little likelihood that we shall be able to reverse the Community's intention (as expressed in Regulations of December last year) of requiring some limitation of imports in the case of non-liberalised items, although there is perhaps a possibility of securing surveillance procedures in substitution of quota restrictions. However, by our action we might at least get a foot in the door on Hong Kong's behalf, as a result of which Hong Kong might be able in bilateral discussions with the Commission to negotiate better terms; it is of interest in this connection that the Regulations apparently provide for export restraint arrangements in substitution of import restrictions.
14.
D. I. Dunnett, Esq., CMG., OBE., Board of Trade.
LACE
XT
29)