TNAG-0160-FCO40-196-Exports-of-textiles-to-Norway-1969 — Page 139

C

C. & I. 200

2700206

50x100-7/67-B55641

COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT,

FIRE BRIGADE BUILDING,

HONG KONG.

TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS:~~~~

**CANDONG" HONG KONG

OUR

REF.:

YOUR REF.:

RECEIVED IN

REGISTRY N-.51

22 August

CR/EIC.213/5/11 II

¡5 SEP 1969

HK Dep

2

M

1-1/6/331/1 133小

ر يا قم

Dear Wilford,

HICCG/396/1

196 9

Welcome to your new chair, though I am sorry that we have presented you with such a difficult problem so soon after you took over.

2.

I have telegraphed a reply to your telegram on Norwegian Textile consultations, in which I said a letter would follow.

3.

I went to Oslo from Stockholm, that is, after the meetings in the Board of Trade on 12 and 13 June. I went ostensibly to deal with a minor classification problem under our agreement to restrain exports of certain cotton garments, but also to probe Norwegian intentions for the future with respect to the non-cotton items on which we had reached agree- ment last summer. This agreement expires on 30 September. We could see our time-table getting a bit full and if the Norwegians wanted to continue the arrangements we wanted to make sure that any necessary consultations would be held before the current agreement expires so that trade could con- tinue to flow.

4.

In the meetings that we held in the Board of Trade on 12 and 13 June it was eventually agreed that we should be prepared to continue restraint on our exports to Sweden of synthetic fibre anoraks and woollen and synthetic knitwear, and to concede a new restraint on "discontinuous synthetic" fibre shirts which, in practice, means polyester/cotton shirts. We had had a great deal of argument as to whether existing restraint should be continued let alone any new ones conceded, and I had taken it that the outcome of these discussions was that the policy under which we have been operating recently was re-confirmed, i.e. that in the field of non-cotton textiles we should be prepared to consult and to consider export restraint where the importing country could make an "Article XIX-type" case. That is to say, that we would consider restraint where the importing country could show that increasing imports of a particular product or products were causing or threatening serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products, and that that injury either was being caused by Hong Kong alone or was being caused by a number of countries including Hong Kong, and the importing country was taking or had taken action to limit its imports from the countries principally concerned.

5.

In fact, I said at the end of the last meeting in Hughes' office on the afternoon of 13 June, "This means that the policy remains unchanged" and no one denied this.

6.

I went off to Stockholm and negotiated an agreement on the lines referred to above. In our further discussions in the Board of Trade on 23 June, this was only very briefly referred to as a satisfactory outcome and no one suggested that the agreement should not have been made.

7.

Since our discussions before I went to Stockholm had been on policy and principle and not just on the immediate problem of dealing with the Swedes, and since Hong Kong had already said (in our telegram to London 463 of 7 June) that we contemplated the extension of the non-cotton restraints

with Canada,/