quite clear that growing imports have been absorbed by the Norwegi market without much effect on domestic production and in our view the Forwegians cannot demonstrate from those figures that the conditions of Article XIX have been met.
7. Nhe case is even weaker if one includes cotton Jackets and with the mar-pade fibre figures. I understand frou. 1180 Welch that the Norwegians have, in fact, recognised that they luve not get a case on cotton anoraks and have agreed to drop their request for restraint on this item in place of the present BA'S.
mesong and Girls' Uweaters
465.
866.
The difficulty here is that the figures in the two tables do not compare like with like. The importa refer:ed to in the second table are considerably hi her than those in the first table. One is described as relating to synthetics and the other to "filzen older than tool",
5. It will be recalled that this is a joint quota, covering wool and acrylles, liong Kong having accepted the validity of the "one market concept" in this case. Last year we accepted that, on the precedent established in the Gran cse, we could are that, presentationally, the Norwegians could make out a case und r Article XIX for showing that increased imports from Hong Kong hai chuned or threatened metorial injury to the domestic industry. However, the figures which have now been made available so that the docline in Norwegian production between 1967 and 1980 could not be attributed, as Article XIX requires, to increased imports from Rong Kong or, for that matter, from any whero s0. The decline iz sports of wool sweaters continuos and the case Cum obandoning this reairant is, on the face of it, overwhelming.
10.
The situation is not in roved, from the Norwegian point of
montero, view, by aggregating it with acrylic
o consider ļ that such aggregation is realistic and accept the validity of the joint quota. The figures added together show that there was a stoop decline in production in the years 1967 and 1968, followed by a further, but relatively smalle decline, in the first six months of this year, but as me pointed out last year, imports from Bong kong could haruly be blamed for even a major part of the damage to the Norwegian industry, since importa of serylic sweaters from other countries : re wino increasing very rapidly. You will see from page 8 that Norway imported twice as much from Temark in the first half of thie year as she did from Hong Kong and that thegamese increase in importa in the sale period was twice as much in the case of the V.A., and grvator in the cuso da Tanwark, than the absolute increase in imports from Hong Kong. The No. wegians may have a case under Article XIX) for nor-discriminatory application of M, but, given the fact that importo from Hong Kong have been under restraint for a year, it is quite evident that nothing but its own exertion will stop the Norwegian industry from destruction at the hands of other supliers, mainly in PTA countries. restriot ens chould either be made non-discriminatory or dropped, for the io no Article VIVcase against Kong Yong.
11.
Stone'
si Speat FS
462. 863-
These
Th 22 10 ngan a difficult, aldus th mport figuros on
pace 14.
12. You will see that the decline in production of wool seeature in the first half of 19 has been poze than wholly accounted for by the decline in expo ts. Imports of wool sweaters h ve increased, but given who I ot that, as recently ae in 1968 three-quarture of the production was sold overseas, it Buens west weli way that the imports in question are "like or directly competitivo” mati. lie doucetic
ct.
Norvegian /production
Labsolute
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.