0003230
G.F. 323
CONFIDENTIAL
- 8 -
Second Statistical Sub-Committee Meeting 10.00 a.m. Wednesday, 25th September. 1968
Present:
Mr. Haerum
Mr. Ivarson
Mr. Engebrigtsen Mr. Rønning
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jeaffreson
Mr. Lin
Mr. Yau
Mr. Tien
Mr. Cheong
30.
Turning to women's synthetic skirts, dresses etc. (item 841.736), Mr. Jordan said available statistics indicated that both - domestic production in Norway and global imports were increasing, whereas Hong Kong's share of the import market had declined. Consequently, there appeared to be no case for quantitative
restriction.
31.
Mr. Rønning pointed out that Hong Kong's share of the Norwegian market in ladies' and girls' cotton garments had increased from 23% in 1966 to 36% in 1967. He contended that there was an interrelationship between cotton and non-cotton items, and that it was ultimately a question of the type of garment and not fibre content. Mr. Jordan could not agree that restraint in cotton wear would necessarily lead to wholesale substitution of synthetic wear. He added that the question of change in tastes and variation in demand had also to be taken into consideration. He noted that the Norwegian and Hong Kong delegations were arguing on two different bases - the Hong Kong side on the basis of actual market disruption or imminent market disruption, the Norwegian delegation on the basis of a possibility of market disruption. He accepted there was a tendency to shift from cotton to synthetic, but this was in response to changing demand and was not created by manufacturers.
32.
Mr. Engebrigtson interceded to support his colleague's arguments and remarked that the relationship between cotton and non- cotton wear was not an academic question. The G.A.T.T. agreement on cotton textiles was regarded by all (sic) nations as inadequate and there was a feeling that the agreement should be extended to cover synthetics. His colleague's comments were a reflection of present day thinking in the textile world. Mr. Jordan replied that he was aware of this feeling but pointed out that in fact no proposals had yet been put forward for the extension of the C.T.A. Even if this extension were effected, it would surely be applied on the basis of actual market disruption and not on the vague possibility of disruption.
33.
Mr. Engebrigtsen drew attention to the difficulty in defining what constituted a threat of market disruption. He thought that increased domestic production did not necessarily mean that there was no damage to the industry as the percentage increase might well have been curtailed by competition from large quantities of low priced imports. Mr. Jordan stated that the logical extension to
Mr. Engebrigtsen's argument was that the Norwegian industry should claim a share of any new market which might be developed by another country. He stressed that any attempt to freeze market shares regardless of innovation and market change could prove damaging to all parties
concerned.
/34.
CONFIDENTIAL