¡
3
3.
(a)
production and imports both increased very rapidly
between 1965 and 1967, but production in 1968 fell back
by a small margin to well above the 1966 level;
(b) production steadied in 1968 after falling
substantially between 1966 and 1967, but imports have
gone on increasing;
(c)
(a)
production and imports have both fallen substantially;
restrictions have already been imposed on e.g.
South Korea or Yugoslavia, even though their trade with
Sweden is not subject to the normal rules of the G.A.T.T.
Industries 1, on the other hand, have taken the view that
the applicant country should be required to demonstrate that imports
from Hong Kong have caused or threaten serious injury to the
domestic industry. A reduction in production caused by e.g. a
change in fashion would not in their view be a sufficient reason for
imposing restrictions on imports. They are particularly opposed to
the CRE1 view that the main test of injury is the "benchmark",
1.e. the percentage share of consumption taken by imports.
takes no account of the historical position, is out the G.A:T.T.,
and is particularly prejudicial to the interest of the U.K.
industry in securing the same effective level of protection as
other developed countries.
4.
This
For these and other reasons Industries 1 take a very
different view from CRE1 of the justification for Swedens
continuing the existing restraints or for imposing new restraints
on non-cotton items.
There was general agreement a year ago that