was imports and we would have a domestic pro-
blem on our hands notably with Hong Kong, from
whom large numbers of polyester/cotton shirts
were coming in. On the hypothesis that some
concession had to be made to the Americans he
would prefer that the US be allowed an Article
19 case (which he believed they could justify
on the basis that production was at a stand-
still with imports rising) in shirts, blouses,
and sweaters. Asked whether he had changed
his mind about the strength of the US case in
terms of Article 19, Mr. Stewart denied this
but spoke about the modification of Article 19
criteria and the hypothetical situation in
which some concession had to be made.
9. Mr. Dunnett agreed that on a point of
doctrine the Americans might make out an
Article 19 case but said that the indications
were that it would not satisfy the US to do
so and that we would also have to consider how
unwelcome a precedent it would be to misuse
the GATT in such a way.
10.
Mr. Goldsmith said that under their
present laws the US could not compensate
trading partners injured by an Article 19
case and that retaliation would therefore
have to follow. This would be unwelcome.
11.
Mr. Jordan said that to concede a weak
case under Article 19 would be a dangerous
precedent which could spread to other products.
12.
Mr. Goldsmith said that he suspected that
some EEC member countries would not object to
a non-cotton agreement on LTA lines. He asked
whether at the next CTC meeting we wanted to
fill in the GATT proposals we had made tenta-
tively at the first meeting.
/ 13..
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN