TNAG-0152-FCO40-188-Exports-of-cotton-textiles-to-Canada-1969 — Page 105

agre

absence developed countries may take if imports cause injury to their industries both in respect of cotton and of other imports. The inconclusive discussions of the problems of market disruption which were pursued in GATT prior to the catablishment of the CTA might be resumed at the point where they then left off in 1960. We might our- solves seek to take the occasion to remedy unsatisfactory

features of the present situation.

18. The present position is unsatisfactory in that

the

had Boš Wfical anclusion to Which this trads?

(a) There are no agreed criteria for what con-

stitutes "market disruption" or "serious injury to domestic producers". It is true that the GATT Working Party on market disruption in 1960 arrived at a partial definition which was annexed to the CTA, but this was admittedly incomplete and has no authority in any case

except in respect of cotton textiles. Contracting Parties have claimed "serious injury" and acted under Article X1X of the CATT in a great variety of cases (over forty in number) and in practice the GATT has left it to the judgment of the country taking the action to decide for itself whether its situa- tion amounted to "serious injury". This lack of uniformity exposes us to embarrassing pressures from our own industry, since it is impossible to state clearly the circumstances in which it is internationally permissible either for others or ourselves to restrain imports. While the President's announcement of our tariff policy for cotton textiles spoke only of action under the CTA, there may well be a need to clarify the circumstances in which we might restrain textile imports if the CTA

comes to an end.

(b) While the CTA permits cotton imports to be

restricted without compensation and on a discriminatory basis, action to restrain any other importa (except in the case of general

import restrictions for balance of payments reasons) is required by the GATT Article X1X

/to

Page 105Page 106