}
3. Our comments on the proposed negotiating instruc-
1
!
tions itemized in para 5 of your telegram No. 446 are:
(A) Knitwear
We note that Swedish production has declined to a
level of 1/7th of imports of which Hong Kong has the
major share. Production of women's and girls discon-
tinuous synthetic, has fallen sharply 1967/68 and so
have imports but this seems to be due to Korean
restraint with Hong Kong's share increasing.
that this makes a case for restraint but not at reduced
level proposed by Swedes. We think you should not
We agree
settle below 2,200, claiming growth and the higher level
WOOL for men's and boys' ware proposed in your telegram 339.
(B) Anoraks
5.
After rapid increases in 1965067 production slipped 1965 67 production slipped
a little in 1968 while imports rose by some 40% (Hong
Kong's by some 30%). This was never a strong case for
restraint, since production increases belied injury from
increasing imports. But in the light of the 1968 figures
we agree that continued restraint can hardly be denied.
However we were concerned as you know at the sharply
reduced level you appeared to be contemplating.
We see
no justification for accepting a restraint level below
the existing 785,000 plus appropriate addition for growth
and women's and girls' discontinuous not previously
restrained.
(C) Underwear
6. With the coverage uncertainties referred to above
we cannot comment except to say that only if the Swedes
can demonstrate that the figures for production and
imports are comparable so that the picture was clearly
one of a heavy fall in production and a very large rise
could we in imports, as on the face of it, is the case,
agree restraint.
1946) Dư 392077 300m 10/68 GWBLtd. Gp.863
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARCHNE