A
6 To my knowledge, these technical discussions have not taken place. I suggest that the Delegation in Brussels and Mr Dodge should recall these statements and press for full discussion of the treatment of these products in terms of both origin and of any damage to Community producers.
7 The remaining items on the list ie;
A I C
84.52
84.53
84.55
90.28
90.29 92.11
A
A
were listed at the end of the third table attached to the Working Group's report in December under the heading "other Hong Kong sensitive products which could find themselves in the same situation, for which the EEC imports effectively only from Hong Kong and for which special attention will have to be given in the future" But I do not think that these particular items have been formally notified to us at any stage as being sensitive from Hong Kong. They were not listed among the sensitive and semi-sensitive goods from Hong Kong which the Community formally handed over on 26 January (CODEL 46 and 47). The best action on these would therefore be to seek explanations of what damage was being caused.
8 I do not think however that we shall be in a position to go any further than this. Although these exclusions will clearly reduce yet still further the benefits that Hong Kong may obtain under the preferences scheme of the enlarged Community, I do not see how we can now complain very strongly, given that the Conference is about to reach a harmonious conclusion. The most that Hong Kong can hope for is the exclusion also of her main competitors but the Community may have difficulty in agreeing to such a departure from the line that their scheme includes all manufactures, (the Community made this point on
12 January, CODEL 17).
OH KELMIS
CREL
Room 448
Extension 2457 Victoria Street
26 October 1971
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.