Mr. Goldsmith commented that we had surely argued at the time of
the Stans meetings that the US contention thet injury was being
CHon caused by imports from Hong Kong was not justified for any items.
non,
Mr. Stewart replied that this depended on the interpretation
which was placed on the criterion of "injury" in Article XIX. На
understood that the case law and history of Article XIX allowed for
the assumption that "serious injury" was caused if production
remained static while imports increased.
Mr. Dunnett said that the Article XIX criterion was vague and
GATT history gives the benefit of the doubt to the country which
had imposes restrictions. The use of Article XIX always on a non-
He
discriminatory be and though there had been differences of opinion
it was generally understood that this was required. The use of
Article XIX also called for "agreement" between the parties which
normally involved the provision of compensation, or retaliation.
agreed that GATT history indicated that, as Mr. Stewart had said,
"injury" might be considered to have occurred if there had been
heavily rising imports against static production.
Mr. Goldsmith said that, whether or not we might consider that
the Americans could make out an Article XIX case on some items, there
seemed to be no likelihood that they could be persuaded to make use
of this Article. It had always been open to them but hitherto they
had maintained that Article XIX action would not provide a solution.
There was also the difficulty that at present the US had no powers
to offer compensation.
Mr. Jordan said that in any case US production of knitted
garments and of shirts and work garments was rising.
He quoted
figures published by the Federal Reserve Board.
event there could not be an Article XIX case.
Surely in this
To suggest that such
a case existed if there was a mere decline in the share of the total
market taken by domestic products would be a very dangerous precedent.
Mr. Whitehead
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.