0003230
G.F. 323
CONFIDENTIAL
-
18
to the notice of the Hong Kong authorities. received.
99.
No reply had been
Baron de Geer said that no one from his present delegation was present at the 1968 consultations which had considered coverage in detail. He believed at that time Hong Kong was represented by Mr. Haddon-Cave and Mr. von Oelreich represented the Swedish side; but he was certain that Sweden had consistently used statistics covering all shirts and not just dress shirts.
100.
Mr. Dorward said that he was present at the 1968 consultations and that his memory and the Hong Kong records indicated that it was agreed at that time the problem area of trade was mainly in polyester/cotton dress shirts. The Swedish side had said at that time that their industry's difficulties stemmed from the innovation of permanent press shirts. The restraint level was based on performance in dress shirt only. Mr. Henriksson disagreed with this and said that the level was based on Swedish import figures which included all shirts.
101.
To prove his point, Mr. Dorward referred to a document dated 19th July, 1968 and signed by Mr. von Oelreich which gave guidance to Swedish importers on the import regulations resulting from the negotiations held in July, 1968. The following excerpt clearly acknowledged the separate classification of dress shirts.
"The list of goods annexed
are owing
to practical reasons on a few minor points different from the lists agreed upon in Hong Kong."
The differences were the following:-
102.
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
beaded or embroidered sweaters etc. were excluded from quota;
sweaters etc. of fine animal hair were included
in the Swedish heading, but not in the /A system;
embroidered blouses were also excluded from the E/A system;
(iv) all shirts were included in the Swedish heading,
but the E/A system covered only 'dress shirts'.
This demonstrated that there had been no misunderstanding in 1968 and that confusion came at a later date.
103.
Baron de Geer maintained that during the 1969 negotiations, the Swedish delegation used figures compiled from Swedish Import Statistics which, as had been pointed out, did not differentiate between dress and non-dress shirts. He wondered if Hong Kong could define 'dress shirt' as this term was not in the Swedish nomenclature. Mr. Dorward said that the figures notified in 1968/69 E/A and 1969/70 licensing returns explicitly related to dress shirts; and he himself had attempted a definition which had been conveyed to Stockholm by the Swedish Consul General in December, 1969.
104.
Mr. Ho noted that the terms of the current cotton textiles agreement recognised the separate classifications of dress and other than dress shirts, albeit they had a combined limit. He could see no reason why difficulties should arise over the same distinction being drawn in regard to non-cotton shirts.
/105.
CONFIDENTIAL