(b)
13
second reason is that there is no need for a rollback provision in Article 4 eince negotiations under it are not intended to deal with imports which are actually causing disruption but only
There are therefore no good to "eliminate real risks" of it. grounde for importing countries to seek any cutbacks at all (but they do).
"The other is to fix the reference period to the start
This would avoid the of bilateral negotiations.
forestalling problems experienced under the present MFA."
37.
As already explained, the question of "forestalling" does not arise under Article 3. The reason why it has caused such problems for the Community is because it chose to seek consultations with exporting countries under Article 4 (presumably because it knew it could not make a case under Article 3). Article 3 provides for fixed reference periods for the purpose
The MEC of calculating base levels, but Article 4 does not. created more difficulties for itself by failing to seck and conclude consultations speedily. The problem can be over- come by referring to Article 3 in requests for restraint, fulfilling the obligations imposed by Article 3 and then per- suading the exporting country during the consultations to agree on restraint under Article 4, so that if the exporting country fails to agree on restraint under Article 4, the Community could then fall back on its Article 3 request with its fixed reference
period.
38.
It is unlikely that the Community is unaware of this solution. We suspect that it has not tried it because it is usually able to make a presentable case of market disruption, which would stand up to scrutiny by the Textiles Surveillance Body.
39.
In any case, as we have already pointed out, "forestalling" is a thing of the past. If the EEC were to use the existing MFA effectively in future, it need never arise again.
CONFIDENTIAL
蜜
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.