0003230
1
G.F. 323
1
CONFIDENTIAL
17.
- 6 -
On
Collin also notified us that the French had decided to abolish their certification requirements, 1.e. for the sixteen items still requiring certification of origin and which were subject to a 50% Commonwealth content endorsement. They said they were taking this step in response to rticle 5 of 1.4.C. Regulation No. 802/63 regarding the Common Definition of the Origin of woods. He said he would give us formal notification of this (presumably through the British Embassy in Paris), but some slight formality would still be required for sewing machines on account of an industry restraint agreement with Japan. this point, Jordan mule it clear that what we objected to wes the special endorsement requirement: we had no objection to certification requirements generally and would encourage our exporters to continue to make use of certificates of origin for exports to France; we did not want a situation to arice where Hong Kong was alleged to be merely transhipping other people's manufactures and causing market disruption thereby. (I mi ht add that the French indicatel almost at the start of the talks that they were going to make this change without any promoting from us.)
13.
1.T.
Jinally, Jordan reiterated the point that under the G./. there was no legal basis for their restrictions. He pointed out that, though Collin had claimed that there had been no basic change in the French attitude, the fact that the French Government had in its C.^,T.T. list omitted reference to its restrictions against long Kong, whereas in 1962 they had submitted a specific Hong Kong list, might give other members the impression that there had been a ch nge. Therefore when the French list came under examination in the 3.4..T., M....4. might have to pursue the matter further to clarify the points not included in the French notification. The omission from the list of any reference to the discriminatory restriction against Hong, Kon could hardly be allowed to pass without comment. e also said we might wich to seek further information from france under Article III (e.g. parteraph 3(a) thereof).
19.
Jones has reported from ULI Jenev that the ...T.T. Committee on rade and Developments Residual Restrictions Group is meeting on 17/18 april to carry out pro uct by product examination of restrictions in developed countries on products of interest to developing countries; and that it is probable that the French list referred to above will be prominent in the discussions.
27.
I see no adv.nta, e to be gained from any acrimonious exchange with the French on their restrictions against ong Kong, but feel that if the list does come under discussion, its misleading nature should not be allowed to pass without comment. I therefore sugest that UN.I. should ask the French mission whether, since they have informed the Tonong Government that the discriminatory restrictions omitted from their list are still to be maintained, they are now prepared to submit a supplementary paper settin; out the full position. If they are not, then the attention of the lesidual Restrictions Group should be drawn to this omission, it should be made clear that we object to these restrictions as contrary to France's 3.A.T.T. obligations, and the Group should be informed that we would wish to consult with France under Article
21.
II with a view to the early removal of the remaining restrictions. I doubt if such action would any further prejudice our position with regard to the development of the 3.1.C. Common Commercial Policy or the U.1.C.T.A.). references issue but rather that, if the French maintain an anti-long Mong attitude in these fields, the other members of the Community may well feel that t is in at least partly attributable not so much to any real concern about imports from Hong Kong (the facts and figures available show how unreal this would be) but rather to annoyance that Hong Kon', has at last publicly protested about these restrictions.
CONFIDENTIAL
/22.