--8-
171
be liable to lay the Colony open to retaliatory measures.
20.
The argument in favour of a tariff, on the
other hand, is more scious and is much strengthened
by the fact, already mentioned, that there is littlc
or no entrepot trade in cement. It must, however, be
remembered that any such tariff would open the door to
appeals for protection from other local industries.
The infant brewing industry, for example, might well
put forward a similar claim and further support it by
the argument that it was in accordance with world wide
economic practice to give protection to young and
growing industries.
especially since it would be pointed out that adequate
bonding facilities were already provided to provent
interference with the entrepot trade.
21.
Refusal would be difficult,
Moreover we have evidence that, to be effective,
the duty on foreign coment would have to be at least
$12.00 per ton, or roughly $1.00 per bag, and that even
so the price of Japanese cement would be a few cents
lower than that of the Groen Island Cement Company
product. Although it has been argued that the cost
of cement forms too small a portion of the total cost
of a building for this duty to make any material difference
to the building trade of the Colony, we are by no means
satisfied that such is indeed the case, and we are
unwilling to recommend any measure which will increase
the present high cost of living in Hong Kong.
22.
There is also the argument that no tariff
could be imposed against one country without being
imposed against all. The effect would therefore be
to exclude not only Japanese cement but also cement
from China and French Indo-China. At the moment this