TNAG-0135-FCO40-171-Tariff-preferences-for-developing-countries-1969 — Page 194

/8.

exceptions but backed up only with a vague and general safeguard

mechanism on which they would have no great reliance. The views

of the Commonwealth in general have not yet been sought. The

developed members of the Commonwealth Preference Area and the

Irish Republic have been consulted but only Australia has

replied in detail. They have indicated in strong terms their

opposition to our offer of duty free entry with only a general

safeguard and have urged us to consider a more specific

safeguard provision particularly to protect third country

suppliers; duty quotas would go some way to meeting their concern.

Similarly developing Commonwealth countries would be likely in

principle to favour quantitative restrictions on the competition

they would have to face in our market from other developing

countries as the result of duty free entry, although on

particular products their view would depend on the level of

the duty quota that would be fixed in each case.

The application of duty quotas to the U.K. offers

.23.

In considering how our duty quotas could be adopted as the

basis for a revised U.K. offer it is difficult to draw on

relevant previous experience in this country. A range of goods,

mainly agricultural products but including jute and cotton

textiles and pottery, are subject to import quotas butthe level

of the quotas has no direct connection with the levels of the

duty chargeable. Within the quota limits imports enter under

Commonwealth preference if from the Commonwealth or pay the

full rate of duty if from elsewhere; when the quota limit is

full no further imports are allowed at all. All the existing

quotas are therefore administered by means of import licensing

and no goods can be imported without a valid import licence.

: /(in