TNAG-0162-FCO40-198-Export-of-textiles-to-Norway-and-Sweden-1969 — Page 47

0003230

G.F. 323

CONFIDENTIAL

- 6 -

.

synthetic fibres were entirely interchangeable, and it would be pointless to differentiate between the two and restrain only woollen knitwear: He produced samples in support of his contention.

21.

Mr. Jordan pointed out that, according to Table 20 of the Norwegian statistics, although imports from Hong Kong had risen a little, Hong Kong's share of the market had, in fact, declined. He believed that both Hong Kong and Denmark were losing ground to other suppliers. On the question of fibre substitution, he enquired which synthetic fibre bore the strongest resemblance to wool. Mr. Engebrigtsen replied that wool and acrylic fibre had almost identical properties, and that it was imports of women's knitwear of both these fibres from Hong Kong that were disrupting the Norwegian industry.

22.

Mr. Jordan then referred to Hong Kong's exports to Norway of men's and boys' synthetic slacks, shorts, etc. (item 841.719). He conceded that Hong Kong had taken up a reasonable share of the Norwegian market 4% in 1966 rising to 12% in 1967. However, imports from other sources had since risen and Norwegian production increased. Hong Kong exports of only 1,086 dozens in the first six months of 1968

Relating clearly indicated that its market share was dwindling. current performance to the proposed restraint limit of 8,500 dozens. he could see no reason for any restriction.

and it would be

Mr. Tien did

23.

He enquired whether cotton and synthetic trousers were regarded in the trade as substitutes or whether there was a separate market for each. Mr. Rønning replied that synthetic and cotton trousers were manufactured in a similar way, that cotton and synthetic fibres could be blended in a variety of ways and that price differentials were not great. Accordingly, he was of the view that there was a single market for cotton, synthetic and blended pants; illogical to restrict imports of cotton trousers only. not agree that cotton and synthetic trousers were produced in a similar fashion or that production methods in Norway and Hong Kong were the same. For example, as the Norwegian industry did not produce recognised perma-press trousers, Hong Kong's exports could not be damaging the Norwegian industry. Mr. Ronning said that, in his knowledge, there were different degrees of permanent pressing, ranging from ordinary ironing to more sophisticated processes. As Norwegian garment makers were already using the traditional ironing method, hẹ could not agree that imports from Hong Kong of perma-press trousers were not causing injury.

24.

ན

Mr. Jordan said the fact that Norwegian production had risen and imports had also increased was a fair indication that domestic capacity was insufficient to meet demand. Hong Kong only held a small share of the Norwegian market, export performance being 8,500 dozens

Even based on in 1967 and 1,086 dozens in the first half of 1968. 1967 figures, the Norwegians did not have a strong case for requesting restraint, but the case was even weaker on performance in 1968.

25.

Mr. Rønning repeated that figures for eight months of a year could not be taken as a reliable guide for the general trend. He also reiterated his earlier remarks regarding the interchangeability of cotton and synthetic fibres (para. 23 above), and said that domestic production had remained more or less static on account of rising imports. Mr. Jordan remarked that the large scale restrictions envisaged would be totally unrealistic. He also pointed out that no exporting country would accept as a basis for restraint the fact that the importing country's domestic industry was unable to acquire an increased share of the market - especially when domestic output was rising.

/26.

CONFIDENTIAL