source
stringclasses 1
value | document_id
stringlengths 11
11
| title
stringlengths 4
531
| short_title
stringlengths 0
109
| author
stringclasses 941
values | date
stringlengths 3
10
| type_of_document
stringclasses 5
values | identifier
stringlengths 0
1.19k
| link
stringlengths 54
54
| file
stringlengths 0
25
| folder
stringclasses 157
values | word_count
int64 0
373k
| character_count
int64 0
3.12M
| text
stringlengths 0
3.12M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GATT Library | vs308zq5741 | Sixth protocol of rectifications : Addendum. Rectifications requested to schedule XVIII by the Government of the Union of South Africa | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 15, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 15/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/4/Add.2 and GATT/CP.6/1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vs308zq5741 | vs308zq5741_90070308.xml | GATT_140 | 193 | 1,477 | GENERAL AGREEMENT RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND GATT/CP.6/4/Add.2
15 September 1951
TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
Sixth Protocol of Rectifications
.Addendum
Rectifications requested to Schedule XVIII by the Government of
the Union of South Africa
In addition to the Rectifications referred to in GATT/CP.6/4 and Add.1 the
Government of the Union of South Africa have proposed for inclusion in a Sixth
Protocol of Rectifications a number of rectifications of a non-substantive
character to the Geneva, Annecy and Torquay portions of Schedule XVIII to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The Government of the Union of South Africa state that, apart from a typo-
graphical error, the proposed rectifications consist of minor changes in tariff
item numbers and descriptions so as to accord with the nomenclature of the South
African Custcms Tariff as amended by legislation promulgated subsequent to the
conclusion of the Torquay Tariff Negotiations.
One copy of the proposed rectifications to the authentic English text and
corrections to the unauthentic French text of the South African Schedule to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are being circulated to each contracting
party and acceding government with this document. |
GATT Library | bq364yx2420 | Sixth protocol of rectifications proposed rectifications for consideration at the Sixth Session | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 9, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/08/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/4 and GATT/CP.6/1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bq364yx2420 | bq364yx2420_90070306.xml | GATT_140 | 321 | 2,209 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED C
GATT/CP.6/4
TARIFFS AND TRADE 9 August 1951
______ ____L____F E ORIGINAL:ENGbISH/RNH
CONTRACTING PkTIES
Sixth Session
Sixth Protocol of Rectifications
Pgsi oed Rectificatioixns fors conp~ration at the Sth Sesgin
Reoifications have been p oposed to:
Geneva sheeandduless of Benelux,Frranc;. Pakiean;
Annecy Schedules of Denmark, France, Greece, Pakistan and Sweden;
Torquay Schedules of Benelux, Denmark, France and Sweden.
The above rectifications have already been circulated to delegations
b, y the countries concernedalong with the consolidated texts of the Schedules,
except those to the G.reek and Danish Schedules The rectifications proposed
to the Greek Schedule (in the authentic French text) are reproduced overleaf
and one copy of the proposed Danish rectifications (in the authentic English
text) is circulated to each contracting party and acceder together with this
document.
It is suggested that the establishment of a Sixth Protocol of Rectifi-
cations be considered at the Sixth Session to incorporate these and any other
rectifications. Delegations wishing to propose rectifications to the
authentic Geneva, Annecy or Torquay Schedules are requested to send them in
as soon as possibl e and in agny event beforethe ope.nin of the Sixth Session
(over) GATT/CP.6/4
Page 2.
Liste XXV - GrFce
Seul fait foi le texte français des rectifications
portant sur la presente liste
PremiFre Partie
Tarif de la Nation la plus favorísTe
La position 134 d doit se lire:
"134 d Machines et appareils de tTlTgraphie sans
fil et de tTlTphonie ainsi que leurs par-
ties sTparTment importTes y compris les
lampes polyodes:
1 Appareils rTcepterus de radiodiffusion-
modFles courants de 6 lampes ou moins,
y compris le rectificateur (sans phono-
graphes ou accessoires similaires)
2 Autres appareils rTcepte s de radio-
diffusion et de tTlTvision
3 Autres
4 PiFces de rechange et parties des
appareils des Nos 1, 2 et 3
ad valorem 16%
ad valorem 20%
ad valorem 20%
ad valorem 18% "
--o-o--.. _7 7
111:M-~~I-L
l
4 d |
GATT Library | jg784ts4496 | South Africa-Southern Rhodesia customs union : Second Annual Report, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 18, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/07/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/121 and GATT/CP/121 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jg784ts4496 | jg784ts4496_90310076.xml | GATT_140 | 182 | 1,227 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
.ET LE COMMERCE
LIMITED C
GATT/CP/121
18 July 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SOUTH AFRICA-SOUTHERN RHODESIA CUSTOMS UNION
Second Annual Report, 1951
The Governments of the Union of South Africa and Southen Rhodesia have
furnished copies of the Second Annu. Report of the Southern Africa customs
Union Council. One or more copies of the Report are being distributed here-
with to each contracting party. A small number of extra copies are available
at the office of the Secretariat. Translations will be sent at an early date
to those which receive documents in French.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
UNION DOUANIERE ENTRE L'UNION SUD-AFRICA ET LA RHODESIE DU SUD
Les gouvernements de l'Union Sud-Africaine et de la Rhodesie du Sud ent
fourni des exemplaires du Deuxieme rapport annuel du Conseil de l'Union
douaniere de l'Afrique du Sud. Le rapport eat mis en distribution ot chaque
partie contraotante en recevra un ou plusieurs exemplaires. Le Secretariat
dispose d'un membre limits d'exemplaires supplementaires. La traduction sera
envoyee prochainement aux parties contractantes qui regoivent les documents en
frangais. |
GATT Library | tm149kh8979 | Special exchange Agreement : Establishment of the Initial Par Value of the Currency of Haiti. Note by the Executive Secretary | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 15, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 15/08/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/125 and GATT/CP/125 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tm149kh8979 | tm149kh8979_90310085.xml | GATT_140 | 183 | 1,263 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/125
TARIFFS AND TRADE 15 August 1951
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
Establishment of the Initial Par Value of the
Currency of Haiti
Note by the Executive Secretary
The Contracting Parties were informed by airgram on May 29, 1951 of the
communication dated May 19, 1951 from the Haitian Government concerning the
rates of exchange for the Haitian currency prevailing at the time. Pursuant
to Article II, paragraph 1 of the Special Exchange Agreement between the
Contracting Parties and the Government of Haiti, the initial par value of the
Haitian currency for the purpose of the Special Exchange Agreement has now
been determined as follows:
5 gourdes per U.S. dollar;
0.177734 gram of fine gold per gourde; or
175 gourdes per troy ounce of fine gold,
The action taken by the Chairman of the Contracting Parties in this
connection, in accordance with the procedural arrangements made at the Fifth
Session (GATT/CP.5/44, paragraph 9), including the consultation with the
International Monetary Fund, will be reviewed in a document to be distributed
prior to the Sixth session. |
GATT Library | jp933kr8452 | Special exchange Agreement with Haiti : Notification under Article XI:2 of Special Exchange Agreement | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/02/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/96/Add.1 and GATT/CP/96+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jp933kr8452 | jp933kr8452_90300362.xml | GATT_140 | 156 | 1,089 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
RESTRICTED
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS LIMITED C
GATT/CP/96/Add .1
ET LE COMMERCE 26 February 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH HAITI
Notification under Article XI:2 of Special Exchange Agreement
The following telegram, dated 23 February 1951, has been received from
the Government of Haiti:
"Re your cable 22 February by virtue of Article XI paragraph 2
special exchange agreement Haiti desires to avail itself of the
transitional arrangements and requests ICITO secretariat kindly
advise contracting parties."
PARTIES CONITRACTANTES
ACCORD SPECIAL DE CHAiGE AVEC HAITI
Notif ication requige en. vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'1article- XI
de l'Accord special change
Le telegrame suivnt a ete envoy par la Gouvernement d'Halti en date
du 23 fevrier 1951:
"Ref vote cable 22 fierier en vertu article XI paragraph 2
accord special change Haiti desire se prevaloir dispositions
transitoires et prie secretariat ICITO bien vouloir en aviser
parties contractantes. " |
GATT Library | tk281nr8483 | Special Exchange Agreements : Note by the Executive Secretary | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 13, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/18 and GATT/CP.6/13-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tk281nr8483 | tk281nr8483_90070346.xml | GATT_140 | 1,426 | 9,172 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.6/18
13 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS
Note by the Executive Secretary
(a) Implementation of Special Exchange Agreements with Haiti and Indonesia
1. Since the close of the Fifth Session the Governments of Haiti and Indonesia
have accepted special exchange agreements with the CONTRACTING PARTIES. The
agreement with Haiti entered into force on February 23, and that with Indonesia on
February 25, 1951. The text of these agreements is in conformity with the standard
text adopted by the CONTRACTINg PARTIES at their Third Session.
2. Pursuant to the procedural arrangement made at the Fifth Session for the
implementation of the provisions of special exchange agreements (GATT/CP.5/44,
paragraph 9), the Chairman of the CONTRACTING PARTIES has taken certain action in
relation to these two agreements. A report on the action taken in the inter-
sessional period is attached.
(b) Preparations for Report by the CONTRACTING PARTIES and Consultations
under Article XI of the Special Exchange Agreements
3. The Governments of Haiti and Indonesia notified, in accordance with the
provisions of Article XI of their agreements, that they intended to avail themselves
of the transitional arrangements for the maintenance of restrictions on payments
and transfers for current international transactions (GATT/CP/96 and Add.1).
Paragraph 3 of that Article requires the CONTRACTING PARTIES to report, not later
than March 1, 1950 and in each year thereafter, on such restrictions still in force.
It also provides that, not later than March 1, 1952 and in each year thereafter,
if a government still retains any restrictions inconsistent with Article VII or X
of the agreement it shall consult with the CONTRACTING PARTIES as to their further
retention. The CONTRACTING PARTIES, when giving consideration at the Sixth Session
to the procedure for making these annual reports and for carrying out the annual
consultations, might take into account the procedure they decide to adopt for the
preparation of the annual reports on the discriminatory application of import
restrictions applied for balance-of-payment reasons and for the annual consultations
on the continuance of certain discriminatory practices (cf. GATT/CP.6/19).
(c) Action required of Burma, Sweden, Germany and Liberia
4. At their Fifth Session the CONTRACTING PARTIES granted an extension of time,
until September 17, 1951, to the Governments of Burma and Sweden for action under
Article XV:6 of the General Agreement, the Fund having indicated that these
Governments were likely to become members before the opening of the Sixth Session
(GATT/CP.5/44). Sweden joined the Fund on August 31, 1951. No indication has
been received from the Government of Burma as to its intentions. GATT/CP.6/18
Page 2
5. Among the governments which participated in the Torquay tariff negotiations
with a view to acceding to the General Agreement, only Germany and Korea are not
members of the Fund. Under the terms of a resolution of the Third Session,
governments acceding to the Agreement which are not Fund members are required
either to join the Fund or to enter into a special exchange agreement with the
CONTRACTING PARTIES within four months after the date of accession (GATT/CP/32,
page 32). Germany will become a contracting party on October 1, 1951 and
should therefore enter into a special exchange agreement not later than
February 1, 1952, if by that time it is not a member of the Fund. Korea has
not yet signed the Torquay Protocol.
6. The position of Liberia in relation to the provisions of Article XV:6 of
the General Agreement was examined at the Fourth Session. In the course of
discussion the Fund advised that Liberia was expected to become a member of the
Fund within a short time, the Fund having determined the conditions of member-
ship for that country. On the basis of this information the CONTRACTING
PARTIES took no action but noted that if Liberia, after its accession to the
General Agreement, should claim to be covered by the provisions of the third
Resolution on exchange agreements adopted at the Third Session, the CONTRACTING
PARTIES should consider the applicability of that resolution to Liberia
(GATT/CP.4/41/Rev.1, paragraph 18). The Fund advised on August 1, 1951 that
the Government of Liberia had been unable to take up membership in the Fund
under the resolution enabling it to enter the Fund by accepting the terms and
conditions of such membership by October 1, 1950. In these circumstances,
the CONTRACTING PARTIES will wish to consider whether the position of Liberia
conforms to the conditions set forth in the Resolution of the Third Session
(GATT/CP/32, page 34) by which a country which uses solely the unrestricted
currency of another contracting party and which is not a member of the Fund, is,
under certain conditions, exempted from the requirement of entering into a
special exchange agreement with the CONTRACTING PARTIES. GATT/CP.6/18
Page 3
A N N E X
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
ON ACTION TAKEN UNDER THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENT
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS
1. The procedural arrangement made at the Fifth Session provides that if a
question should arise under an agreement requiring action by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES at a time when they are not in session the matter will be referred to
the Chairman and he will undertake consultation with, and seek necessary
determinations by, the International Monetary Fund in accordance with Article
XV:2 of the General Agreement (GATT/CP.5/44, paragraph 9). The present
report deals with action taken in accordance with this arrangement between the
Fifth and Sixth Sessions with respect to the two special exchange agreements,
with the Governments of Haiti and Indonesia.
2. On the basis of advice from the Fund, and pursuant to Article III:2 of
the agreements, a copy of Regulation F-4 of the Fund's Rules and Regulations,
which sets forth the margins permissible for transactions in gold to members
of the Fund, was transmitted to the two governments. A copy of the Schedule
of Par Values published by the Fund containing the current par values of the
contracting parties which are members of the Fund was furnished to the two
governments in connection with the provisions of Article IV of the agreements.
3. With regard to the question of initial par values for the currencies of
the two countries, consultation was initiated with the Fund on February 9.
The Fund advised that since discussions on the membership application of
Indonesia were in an advanced stage the transmission of a request to that
Government for a communication of the par value of its currency, as envisaged in
Article II:1 of the Special Exchange Agreement, should deferred. In respect
of Haiti, the Fund suggested that the CONTRACTING PARTIES should request that
Government to communicate the par value of its currency based on the rates of
exchange prevailing at the time. A request was accordingly addressed to Haiti
on April 6 and confirmed by telegram on May 15. In reply the Haitian Government
communicated by telegram on May 19 in the following terms:
"Haitian gourde exchangeable against U.S. dollar of weight and
fineness in effect July 1, 1944 rate five for one dollar".
The Fund was informed of this communication and was requested, pursuant to
Article XV:2 of the General Agreement and in accordance with the intersessional
procedure, to take the steps necessary to advise the Contracting Parties on the
matter. Complying with this, the Fund stated in a letter dated July 2 that:
"The Fund has considered whether the communicated par value is suitable
as an initial par value. Pursuant to Article XV, paragraph 2 of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article II of Haiti's Special
Exchange Agreement, the Fund determines that it is suitable as an initial
par value for the currency of Haiti". GATT/CP.6/18
Page 4
The contracting parties were advised on the communication from the Government
of Haiti and of the action taken by the Chairman.
4. In accordance with the provisions of Article II of the Special Exchange
Agreement, the initial par value of the Haitian currency for the purpose of
the Agreement was determined on August 14. This was announced on August 15
in GATT/CP/125.
5. In connection with the report and the consultation required under
Article XI of the special exchange agreements (of paragraph 3 on page 1 above)
the Fund suggested that the Governments of Haiti and Indonesia be asked to
supply detailed information on the restrictions on payments and transfers for
current transactions which are maintained under that Article of the agreement.
Accordingly requests have been addressed to the two governments.
7-4.-. |
GATT Library | np389dr8930 | Special exchange Agreements with Haiti and Indonesia | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 6, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/02/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/96 and GATT/CP/96+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/np389dr8930 | np389dr8930_90300361.xml | GATT_140 | 219 | 1,505 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP/96
6 February 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS WITH HAITI AND INDONESTA
1. According to information received from the United Nations Headquarters,
instruments of acceptance of special exchange agreements were deposited by the
Governments of Haiti and Indonesia on January 24 and 26 respectively.
2* The two special exchange agreements therefor enter into force on the follow-
ing dates:
Haiti
Indonesia
23 February 1951
25 February 1951
3. The Government of Indonesia has indicated that it will avail itself of the
transitional arrangements provided for in Article XI of its special exchange
agreement (see GATT/CP.5/44, par graph 2(d)).
PARTIES CONTRACTNTES
ACCORDS SPECIAUX DE CHANGE AVEC HAITI L'INDONESIE
1. Selon des informations regues du Siege des Nations Uniess les Gouvernements
d'Halti et de l'Indonesie ont depose les 24 et 26 janvier respectivement, des
instruments d'accoptation d'accords speciaux de change.
2. Les deux accords spe'ciaux de change entreront donc en vigueur aux dates
suivantes:
Haiti 23 fevrier 1951
Indonesie 25 fevrier 1951
3. Le Gouvernement de l'Indonesie a annonce qu'il a l'intention de se prevaloir
des arrangements transitoires prevus a l'article XI de son accord special de
change (voir GATT/CP.5/44, paragraphs 2 (d)).
I
I
I
1P EXI - I
I |
GATT Library | zm110mp1512 | Standard Practices for Import and Export Restrictions and Exchange Controls | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 13, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/08/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/123 and GATT/CP/123 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zm110mp1512 | zm110mp1512_90310081.xml | GATT_140 | 1,267 | 8,517 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP/123 13 August 1951 ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Standard Practices for Import and Export
Restrictions and Exchange Controls
Contracting parties will rocollect that at the Fifth Session the Executive
Secretary was instructed to publish the Standard Practices for Import and Export
Restrictions and Exchange Controls and to give maximum publicity to the rocom-
mondations. The Standard Practices were published as a leaflet, in English and
French, on December 27, 1950 and copies wore available for delegations before the
close of tho Session.
Early in 1951 the Secretariat undertook an intensive distribution of the
Standard Practices leaflet, bringing it to tho attention of inter-governmental
and non-governmental organizations which ware likely to be interested as well as
the commercial and technical organs of the press. Contracting parties also
gave widespread currency to the recommended Practices, which wore reproduced in
the respective governmental trade journals. It may be noted that many journals
which are influential in commerce circles also reproduced in full or summarized
the Standard Practices, indicating their potential value for the business
community. On the whole the initiative taken by the Contracting Parties in
this matter appears to have boon well reccived in commercial circles.
The International Chamber of Commerce has submitted to the Contracting
Parties a number of "comments and suggestions designed to complete and where
necessary strengthen the Standard Practices". The full text, which was adopted
as a Resolution of the Thirteenth Congress of the I.C.C. Lisbon, June 1951, is
appended to this paper.
The Twentieth International Wool Conference, meeting in Barcelona, May, 1951,
also considered the Standard Practices. The text of the Resolution adopted by
this Conference, which was formally communicated to the Executive Secretary, is
appended.
1. Introductional Chamber of Commerce
The following is the text of the Resolution on Formalities connected with
Quantitative Restrictions which was adopted at the 13th Congress of the
International Chamber of Commerce, Lisbon, June 1951 GATT/CP/123
Page 2
"With a view to simplifying and standardizing administrative regulations
connected with quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, the
International Chamber of Commerce had contemplated drawing up a code of
fair treatment in this field.
"It is therefore glad to note the initiative taken by the Contracting
Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which, on 30th November
1950, at their 5th Session in Torquay, adopted a sot of Standard Practices
for the administration of import and export restrictions and exchange controls.
"These rules are a definite improvement on existing practice. The
I.C.C. therefore strongly recommends their early application by the govern-
ments of all countries concerned.
"After a preliminary inquiry among the trading and industrial interests
in its membership, the I.C.C. submits to the Contracting Parties the following
comments and suggestions designed to complete and where necessary strengthen
the Standard Practices.
"1. Under Article 3 the administration may refuse the importer or
exporter the right to import or export goods covered by adequately confirmed
order prior to the entry into force of a system of restrictions, even if
delivery can be completed within a specified period. This is neither logical
nor equitable, since it turns what should be an exceptional system into the
system generally applicable. It is not admissible that the possibility for
a trader to fulfil a regular contract should be left to the decision of an
official, particularly as no provision is made fur payment by the State of
compensation for the damage the trader might suffer.
"It should therefore be laid down that now or intensified restrictions
should never apply to goods covered by a bona fide order before the entry
into force of these measures is announced, unless failure to apply them would
dangerously affect the interests of the country in question.
"2. The provisions contained in Article I concerning the grant of
import licences and exchange permits are not sufficiently definite.
Whenever imports are subject to licences and exchange permits, it is
essential that the importer who has reccived the import licence should
automatically be granted the exchange permit enabling him to obtain the
foreign exchange required to pay for the authorized imports.
"Governments should make appropriate arrangements to ensure that the
importers have to accomplish only one formality, for instance by filling
In a single document composed of several sheets., in order to obtain the
licence and the exchange permit, and that applications for the licence and
exchange permit are dealt with expeditiously by the administrations concerned,
the whole set being roturned simultaneously to the importers. GATT/CP/123
Page 3
"3. It frequently happens that the importer does not give his
foreign seller a credit for the whole duration of validity of the licence.
The importer is liable to meet with difficulties from the exchange control
authorities of his country should he wish to extend his credit. Where
credits have to be approved by the administration, they should therefore
cover, or be extedable to the validity of the licence.
"4. When the goods have been dispatched before the expiry date of the
licence, they should be treated as having been exported or imported during
the validity of the licence.
"5. Quotas for seasonal. articles and products the term "seasonal"
being understood in tho wide sense required by the complexity of international
trade - should be rationally distributed over the year.
"6. Any portion of an import or export licence not utilized during
the stipulated period should be carried over to the following, period.
Licences or portions of licences not utilized by the beneficiaries for
reasons within their control should be transferable by the competent admini-
stration to another importer or exporter of the same country.
"7. The governments should do everything in their power to enable the
public to obtain prompt information regarding the delivery of licences and
the extent to which quotas have been utilized.
"8. With regard to the past period of reference provided for in
Article 6, these should be selected by the competent authorities in close
consultation with tho interests concerned with a view to preserving the normal
channels of trade.
"9. Articles which are genuine accessories, of a principal consignment
as well as samples should be treated as outside the quota.
"10. Where deposits are required from importers, they should be no
more than is strictly required to discourage frivolous or speculative
applications for licences.
"11. When professional organizations manage or advise upon import
or export quotas, provision should be made for a procedure of appeal; the
management committees should include the largest, possible number of
representatives of the trades concerned.
"12. In some quota agreements, the item "Miscellaneous" is included
to avoid a lengthy list of articles likely to be imported or exported
The application of this item is usually left to the decision. of the
administation. Measures should be taken. to safeguard against abuses
under this heading". GATT/CP/123
Page 4
*International Wool Textile Organization
The following is the text of the Resolution which was adopted by the
20th International Wool Conference, Barcelons, May 1951.
"The Twentieth it ernational Wool Conference assembled at Barcelona
welcomes the Standard Practices for the administration of Import
and Export Restrictions and Exchange Controls, recommended by the
Governments which are parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs
apd Trade as a step in the right direction, considers with regret,
however, that these governments have not attached sufficient im-
portance to the principle of sanctity of contract, and recommends
that further study be undertaken by the parties in order to give
the fulfilment of genuine contracts entered into before the
imposition of new or intensified restrictions, absolute priority
over all new business". |
GATT Library | rb407df6711 | Statement by the Czechoslovak Delegate | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 16, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Intersessional Working Party on Article XIX | 16/03/1951 | official documents | CP/IW.1/2 and GATT/IC/SR.1-3 IC/SR.4-11 GATT/IC/1-8 IC/W/1-23 CP/IW.1/1-3 GATT/CP/IW.1/4 GATT/IW.2/1-14 IW.2/15-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rb407df6711 | rb407df6711_91850025.xml | GATT_140 | 3,419 | 20,755 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED W.
TARIFFS AND TRADE 16 Biiarch 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PAZ IUS
INTERSESSIONAL WORKING PARTY ON ARTICLE XIX
. .~~~~~~~i
Statement by the Czechoslovbk Delegate
A.
1. Examination of whether the condition of serious injury has been
fulfilled presents a two-fold question:
a) Whether there was any injury;
b) If there was such an injury, whether this..was a serious one.
2. Article XIX lays-out different measures which may be taken in order
to prevent or remedy the injury.
It is quite obvious that the choice as to which one of these actions
may and should be applied depends oni the degree of the seriousness of the
injury. Therefore the Contracting Party which took action under
Article XIX must indicate the extent of the injury to be able to justify
the extent of the action taken
3. Article XIX requires that a serious injury or a threat of it must be
incurred to "domestic producers",
The Working Party has agreed that the category of domestic producers is
comprised of two groups:
a) the workers who actually produce the cornodities / the
employees /;
b) the owners of the means of production - that is the
manufacturers / the employers /.
4. In the first place the serious injury or a threat of it must be proved
as actual or im-inent to! the workers. There are two reasons: first,
the Agreement was convened on the basis of the Havana Charter and the
Final Act, by which the General Agreement was adopted, was a result
of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment. Second,
the workers represent by far the greater part of the producers concerned.
5. When studying the Report of the United States of America Tariff Commission
the Czechoslovak delegation tried to assess on the basis of the factual
material in this Report whether there was any injury caused by the
increased imports to the workers in the United States of America production
(1) This statement was made by the Czechoslovak Delegation in the session
of the Working Party for Article XIX held on March 15, and deals
only with the examination of the question as to whether there was
a serious injury incurred to United States of America production of
-women's fur felt hat bodies. The statement was only part of the
preliminary discussion of the Working Party and does not deal with
the other conditions of Article XIX. of hat bodies.
The Czechoslovak delegation ;egrets to say.that the document is
surprisingly, poor and vague as for as the position of the workers is
concerned. It admits on page 30 that "It is not feasible to ascertain
the number of productive workkers engaged in the manufacture of
women s fur felt hat bodies in the United Sttes''.
b) Further on the document says that the alleged decline in the
average number of productive workers since 1937 is attributable
partly to decreased production of women's hat bodies and. partly to
decreased production of men's hat, but there is no indication
whatsoever in what proportion.
c) And again, the document admits that the decrease in production
both of women's hat bodies and men's hats has been:attributable
largely to so-called "`hatlessness" (page 30). But by a peculiar turn
of argument the docinent continues.-``How ver, a considerable part
of the reduction in total employment in the manufacture of hat
bodies has been attributable to the 'increased imports of women's
hat bodies" - admitting in the spane, sentenee that the proportion
attributable -to the factor of increased imports, of women's hat
bodies cannot be estimated with any:degree of precision. .:
6. It is true the document gives a table. (No. 7'): . showing the average
number of productive workers engaged in making fur felt hat bodies from
1937 to June 1950j but: .. . , . ,
(a) This table is based entirely on estimates and does not
indicate a Jhe average 'was arrived at'-. nor whether the
figures contain the seasonal workers (see' page '29:-
"domestic production of women's fur felt hat bodies is
highly seasonal") .
(b) 'To be able to show the decline in employment even by
those estimated. average figures the document uses as a
base for comnarison the. average number of.workers
employed in 1.937. In this connection I would like to
make a general remark regarding nearly all of the
statistics in the document, .It is in our opinion quite
obvious that aniy comparison with the pre-war situation
in the' ?ierican. production is irrelevant in connection'
'iiau the: question as to whether there Was any injury
caused by the increased imports after the Tariff
Concession had been granted in 1947 It is irrelevant
for the following two reasons
(1) The pre-wat period has nothing to do with
the circumstances under which the cencession
was granted.
(2) The years of the Second World Waras the
document itself admits - changed the whole
structure of American production of hats by
reducing the output to 50% of pre-war level..
Therefore the post-war satuation must be regarded as a completely new
one, and, as the concession was granted in 1947, the base year for a
comparison in development after the granting of the concessions shou
b_ 1947..-or 1948.
- 2 - If we apply this. obviously reasonable principle to the table No. 7
we obtain. this picture:
: Average No. of
workersrs employed
194.7 4, 383
1948 4,349 - 0.85;' in comparison to 1947
1949 3,717 - 12% ' 5' 1948
1950 (Jan.-
Junie) 3,817 + 2.1 " " I' 1949
The comparison of' those estimates in the decisive period shows that
there was a decline by 12o (if the figure 3,71 for 1949 is correct)
in the average number of' workers employed - but it shows at the same
time that in 19.50 started an upward trend in employment - the
percentage of the increase being 2.1. This is in striking contrast
to the percentage of increase in. imports and if the American
delegation maintains that there ir; a relationship of' cause and effect
between the concession and increased imports on the one side and
the situation in.employment on the other, the obvious conclusion,
should be that the -increasing import were causing the increase in
employment,-.
7. In one way this is true because the increasing interest of the women
in velours, which became manifest in higher sales of the velours
imported, created an opportunity for the American manufacturers to
start their own production of velours and thereby they were able to
employ more workers which they required for the newi production line,
8. The Report of the United States of America Tariff Cor.lmission-does not
deal at all with the wages of the workers. As it is the intention
of the Report to show the impact of the alleged injury in every
field: of the American production we may take it for granted that
there was no danger and no threat to the wages of the workers as
otherwise the tariff commission certainly would mention it in the
Report.
9. In any case it is obvious even !f::om the incomplete and insufficient
data given in the Report on employmei'li that there was no injury -
not to speak of a serious one - caused to the workers by the change
of fashion or by the tariff concession and increased imports of
hat bodies with special finishes. ,- ,,a>-- Be
The report of the American Ta'iff Commission makes it clear that the
tariff concession was revoked with the object-of protecting, not so
much the interests of the workers, but rather the interests of that
small section of producers represented by the proprietors of the means
of production, - in this case the American hat manufacturers.
A closer examination of the contents of the report of the American
Tariff Commnission shows, however, that not even they suffered any
serious injury. What are' the facts ?
1. In 1947 there was no production at all in the United States of hat
bodies with special finishes and this is openly admitted on page 29
of the Report of the Amnerican Tariff Conmissionp viz:- "Before 1948
the United States production of women's fur felt hat bodies consisted
almost exclusively of plain felt bodies, made in a number of sizes,
shapes and colours. In the later part of the 1930's a few factories
made small quantities of velours, suedes, or other special finishes,
but production of such hats was .small compared to total prodtiution.
During -and immediately following the w'ar, production probatl.yconsisted
entirely of plain felt bodies. Beginning in 1948 velours. ad.other
special finishes revere made by a few domestic mills".
2. The change of fashion to velours which were accessible to the
market fror.m foreign imports, acted, not as an injury to American
production, but as an incentive to American manufacturers to begin
manufacturing these velours hat-bodies themselves. Thus, the
competition vrith foreign imports acted as a stimulus to home production.
3. From the Report of the American Tariff Commission 'it is possible to
draw up the following table showing the output of velours and the
special finishes from 1948 when this output started:.'
Increase as Index of
Year Output compared with increases
previous year. 1948 = 100
1948 15,000 doz. '100
1949 25,000 doz. 66j; 166
1950 50,000 dos. 100% 350
Note. i. The above figures are taken from Page 29 of the
Report of the Tariff Commission.
ii, The proportion between the output figures for 1948
and 1950 represents an increase of 23Ot.
Moreover, the figure of the total output for 1950 was arrived at by
merely doubling the American estimate of the output in the first half
of the year, and it is undoubtedly far less than the real output,
since, as the Report of the Tariff Cormission states on Page 29, this
output does not reach its peak until the second half of the year.
If we indicate the output in 1948 as 100, in 1950 the index of output
was 330. No comoarison with 1947 is possible, as in that year there was no output of velours at all. At the same time, the monthly
average output in the first. half of 1950 increased by no less than
100 in' comparison with the monthly.average in 1949.
4. If with this we compare the statistics contained in Tables 5 and
;6, we ascertain that by 1950 the import of velours had risen to a
level of 287, the index for 1948 being taken as 100. Thus, the
relative increase of imports in the period between 1948 and 1950
was 43% less than the relative rise in home output."(1)
5, According to the actual American figures the rise in imports from
the end of' 1949 to the first half of 1950 is negligible. In this
connection it must be added that not even the United States of
America expected an increase of imports in the second half of 1950.
On Page 7 of the American document we read as follows: "The peak
period of. production and sales of the domestic hat-bodies occurs in
June, July and August, and that of the foreign hat-bodies for the
United States market somewhat earlier".
6, As regards the increase of imports in 1950, the Report of the
United States Tariff Commission is at variance with itself and its
own statistics. On Page 19 it says: "There was a further substantial
increase...in the first six months of 1950" yet the actual statistics
in the. Report show that the average monthly imports. in the first six
months of 1950 were on a similar level to the average monthly imports
in 1949 (approximately 10,050 in 1949 as compared with 10,305 in
1950).
7. None of 'these particulars suggest that the increased imports of
velours handicapped any increase in the ALmerican production. And as
the Anerican.production, after the concession was granted, increased
more rapidly than the imports, the application of Article XIX in this
connection is absurd.
8* The Report of the American Cormiission attempts to prove that the in-
creased imports of velo~ixls formed an indirect menace also to the' Aerican
production of plain bodies. According to the Report of the
Tariff Cocmnission, this production hat ditficultles of its awn, but
a closer analysis will show that these difficulties ha-d little to do
with the increase in the imports of velours. Incidentally, the
Report itself admits as much quite clearly on Page 5:
"Imports of hat-bodics of these special finishes have /to some extent /
affected domestic production of plain felt,...",1 nd on Page 30 it
f'trther admits that. the factor which caused an alleged decline .n the
domestic production both of women's and men's hat-bodies /obviously
1) Note: The comparison is based on monthly averages for-the
year 1950: these averages were arrived at from the figures
in the Report of.the first six months of 1950 and will be
replaced by the averages taken from the figures for the
whole year 1950 as soon as the United States delegation
furnishes them. -234-
plain ones,, as the output of velours had risen /, was not the increase
in the import of velours at all, but quite a different circumstance.
The Report says: 'The decrease in production both of women's hat-
bodies and. of men's hatshas been attributable largely to reduced
consumption resulting from an increased. tendency to do without
hats". This argument is repeated in several other places.
9. Moreover, it is incorrect to speak of any decline in the output
of plain hat bodies, as, according to Table 6 on Page 29, the
output of plain bodies in 1950, shows an increase of 16% as compared
with 1947. Hence, there is no justification whatever for saying
that the increased imports of velours led to an injury in the
domestic American production.
10. At the last session (8-10 March 1951) the American delegate
argued that the injury incurred by the American manufacturers
consisted in the fact that, with increased imports of velours, they
were at a "competitive disadvantage" as regards hat-bodies with
special finishes.
What are the facts in this respect?
a) The Report of the Tariff. Commission makes it quite clear
that if the American manufacturers are at. any competitive disadvantage
at all. it is not due to any increase in the imports of 'foreign.velours,
but to the simple fact that the Am.erican manufacturers do not know
how to produce hats with special finishes. Incidentally, they were
aware of thcir inability to do so in 1947, nd accordingly they were
also aware that the increased izi:r-orts for which the concession was
granted would compete with them a detail which throws a new light on
the question of the foreseen or unforeseen development.
b) On Page 36 of the Report of the American Tariff Comm-ission
we read: "In field work conducted by the Commission 15 domestic'.
manufacturers of fur-felt bodies were visited: they account fQr. most
of the dorriestic production. Fourteen out of the fifteen,.in either
1949 or 1950, had made. velours or samples of velours. Ten of. the
fifteen reported that these could 'not make a competitive product at
a competitive price with imports. The prices of these concerns
varied, but ranged in the neighbourhocd of $25 to $28 per dozen."
c) Note that the Report here plainly admits that 24 of the
15 manufacturers investigated were producing either velours or
staples of velours. Then of these 14 merely stated (and the Report
does not say whether their statement was investigated and if so,
howa), that they could not make a competitive product. Even if
this were so, why should such be the ease? Evidently because these
10 were producing only samples. From another passage in the Report
(Page 37) it follows that the remaning 4 were those who quoted
18 as their price. Obviously these.; four were the only ones whose
production was on anything like a satisfactory basis. Only ome of
theml was sufficiently familiar with the technique of production that
he was satisfied with $18 as a selling price, this being the rate at
which the four were trying to undersell the foreign imports.
12. In this connection, however, the Report of the Tariff Coimission
contains even more intf. resting particulars:
a) On Page 29 it is stated-that the total production of velours
in 1950 (first half) amounted to 25,000 dozen, aid on Page 37 we read as follows: "Four domestic manufacturers, however, are making velours
(July 1950) to be sold at $18 per dozen and up. The total production
of these four for the first.. six months of 1950 amounted to approximately
25,000 dozen.''. What does this mean? That all the others produced
approximately nothing, and if they .and any output at all it could be
only at an entirely experimental stage. It is easy to understand
that the experiments cost them more than a settled output.
b) Only with regard to the remaining one does the Report
say that his velours were of the sane quality as the imported
velours. "Milliners, domestic manufacturers and importers agree that
the low-priced domestic velours except those of one concern, are
not of as good a quality as the imported". (Page 37). Plainly this
single concern was able to produce hats so as to sell them without
loss at $18 a dozen, this being one dollar cheaper than the cheapest
foreign imports. At the sane time the Report nowhere states how
many of the total output of 25,000 dozen velours were produced just
by this concern which was capable of competing with foreign imports.
c) Yet even in the case of those who state that they are
compelled to sell their sxanples (the prices of which are obviously
burdened by the costs of experimental output) at $25 to $28, it is
not proved.that they were at any serious competitive disadvantage,
as according to Page 39 of the Report of the Tariff Commission, "The
bulk of the imported hat-bodies have sold in the United States
market at prices ranging from $19 to $35 per dozen".
12. The optical illusion that even those domestic manufacturers who
sell at rates higher than $19 are at a corapetitive disadvantage, is
due to the fact that the Rcport of the Tariff Commission makes play
with $19 as the sale price of the foreign imports where, in accordance
with all usages of statistical comparison, it might be expected that
at least am average price would be quoted.
13. According to the Renort of the American Commission, the
American production of hat-bodies was constituted as follows:
Two-thirds mlen's hats.
One-third women's hats and only plain up to 1948.
Thus, the total production of velours formied only a small part of
one-third of the American domestic production.
Even if we were to admit that the manufacturers were at any corn-
petitive disadvantage with regard to foreign imports, it would be
a competitive disadvantage in one line of production.
14. This is quite obvious also from the Report of the Tariff
Commission itself, when it states that the decision to revoke the
concession was not taken because of any necessity to protect the
established domestic production (which is not menaced by imports),
but for the purpose of eliminating foreign competition in the
manufacture of one particular variety for which there is now an
increasing demand. As this involves a variety., the manufacture of
which was not current in the United States of America, obviously the
revoking of the concession was an implement for, killing foreign
imports, so that the American manufacturers could accumulate profits
which previously never came their way. The imports caused no serious
injury to the domestix manufacturers, All that happened was that
these manufacturers took it into their heads that they were being muleted
of imaginary profits.. The application of Article XIX on this account is
more than a absurd,
1-I Ae-3y-- - 7 - - 8 - The tir nd for the whole of 1950
is estimated from the trend shown
Production Monthly average Monthly average by the comparison of the figures
in 1000 for the last 6 months of both 1949 & 1950
dozen 1948 1949 195.0
?-------- --)(-.- )
100
90
80
70
level of total
consumption
imports of
velours level of total production
-,of fur felt hat
*-production of velours
monthly average
____ ___ of domestic prod-
uctign in 1947
production of
plum fur felt
hat bodies
Note: tne figures for 1950 will be
replaced by the actual monthly average
a soom as the figures for the whole
year are available
60
50
30
20
10
0 |
GATT Library | gp393wd4452 | Statement by the Czechoslovak Delegate. Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 19, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Intersessional Working Party on Article XIX | 19/03/1951 | official documents | CP/IW.1/2/Corr.1 and GATT/IC/SR.1-3 IC/SR.4-11 GATT/IC/1-8 IC/W/1-23 CP/IW.1/1-3 GATT/CP/IW.1/4 GATT/IW.2/1-14 IW.2/15-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gp393wd4452 | gp393wd4452_91850026.xml | GATT_140 | 265 | 1,746 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIlFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD
GENERAL SUR:
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LnIaTED W
CP/N7. 1/2/Corr. 1
19 March 1951.
BILING:EJAL.
CONT1RACTING PARTIES
PATIES CONTRACTANTES
INTERSESSIONAL WORKING PARTY ON ARTICLE XIX
GROUPE DE TRAVAIL D'INTERSESSION CIARGE DES QUESTIONS
RELEVAN2 DE, LARTICLE XIX
Statement by the Czechoslovak Delegate
Expose de la Delegation tch6coslovague
Corrig<endu
Delete paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 on page 5, and the graph on page 8,
and replace by graph N&, 1 which follows...
Add Graph No. 2 which follows...
Supprimer les paragraphes 4,. 5 et 6 á la page 5 et les renplacer
par le graphique n° 1 ci-dessaus..
Ajouter .egalement le graphique Ng 2 ci-dessous.
,_Z37 GRAPH NO.1
The relation betwenn the imports cnd domestic United States production
of women's fur felt hat bodies since 1947.
(Based on the "bsolute figures ,.s supplied by the U.S. delegation)
900
800
262
Le.5 65o
600 ~~~~~~~~~~121 5')
6~~~~~~~
503 Level of total-production in 19L
87__
Consumpti o.
Imports
Tot,^l& prodz.,c-
tion
Producticn of
velours
Figure 262 for imports - 259 -/ 3 as estimated fPor
December 1950.
Figure 650 for total production a 607 /4 4. "as
estimated for December 1950
200
I I
InrO
194.9 f -1 GRAPH NO. 2
Monthly
0
Product ion
0
Lo
P4
X ,1
1-9.
) 0 Pe:Ak 1950
. (highest since 2nd
0 qD world war)
g~ a
0
of 0
0
'H a-I
' Pt
t~~~~~~aP *aH6. 94
Peak 1949
\i.. ._ .5C
1,943
I II III IV v , VII vii ix x xi XI E
0
*r4
rs rw |
GATT Library | jz279wm2043 | Statement by the Danish Delegate at the Sixth Meeting of the Contracting Parties in their Sixth Session | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 28, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Intersessional Working Party on the Disparity of European Tariffs | 28/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/IW.2/2 and GATT/IC/SR.1-3 IC/SR.4-11 GATT/IC/1-8 IC/W/1-23 CP/IW.1/1-3 GATT/CP/IW.1/4 GATT/IW.2/1-14 IW.2/15-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jz279wm2043 | jz279wm2043_91850030.xml | GATT_140 | 1,010 | 6,145 | - 246 - RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED C.
CATTT/IW.2/2
TARIFFS AND TRADE 28 September 1951
GONTRACTING PARTIES
INTERSESSIONAL WORKING PARY ON THE DISPARITY
OF EUROTEAN TARIFFS
Statement by the Danish Delegate at the Sixth Meetiog of the
Contracting Partios in their Sixth Session
The new document, GATT/CP.6/23, distributed yesterday in the afternoon
and introduced just now, is in my opinion of the utmost interest. I think
we all and specially the low tariff countries - should. thank the French
Government for taking this bold initiative and thereby demonstrating the
intentions of one of the big high-tariff countries to contribute considerably
to the breaking down of the protectionism of the world of to-day.
In paragraph 1 of the document the French Delegation declares that
since the General Agreement was drawn up, important results have been
achieved towards lowering of tariffs elimination of discriminatory practices
and the expansion of trade. It could not be denied that some results have
been achieved. I world even be prepared to use - in a written document - the
words "important results", but as this is not a public meeting, but strictly
confidential, I don't think we need, when speaking, to be so polite as to
talk of important results. In my opinion we are much nearer the truth when
we say that what we have up till now achieved, is to reduce tariffs to such
an extent only that only in very few cases industries - not to speak of
agriculture - have been influenced. Therefore I fully agree when the French
Delegation.says that "much remains" to be done if the objectives that the
contracting parties have assigned to themselves are to be achieved.
I also welcome that the.French Delegation declares to be of the opinion
that the tine for new progress to be made has now come. We feel that such a
declarat on is very important, and we feel confident that as we - and I an
sure also others - agree in what is said, it will also be possible to find a
way. Where there is a will a way can always be found.
Contracting parties will remember that this whole problem was, as
Mr. van Blankenstein just mentioned, discussed in Torquay during the
tariff-negotiat-ions, and also during the special Session of the Contracting
Parties some months ago. During these discussions we have repeatedly
declared that we are prepared to see all tariffs reduced to the lowest
possible, common level, in order that industries and agriculture in all
countries could have the same competitive conditions and be able to contribute
in the most effective way to the benefit of all countries by the freest
possible competition, on the basis of the different natural possibilities of
production in the Cifferent countries, parallel to what is the case inside the
different countries where no barriers hamper trade between different parts of
that particular country. GATT/IW.2/2
Page 2
How, do the details in the French proposal correspond to this.
I am not going to say very much against the suggestion of reducing
the tariffs by 30% in three years. This I understand could be a beginning.
I must, however, say, that reducing a very high tariff by 30% may in many
cases involve no difficulties at an. Reducing a very low tariff by the
same percentage may on the other hand cause serious difficulties. I
understand that subparagraph 6 of paragraph II in the French proposal
tries to meet this. At any rate the overall reduction of existing tariffs
by the same percentage cannot be a sine qua none to the French Delegation,
as, I understand whit the Freuich Government is aiming at is the breaking
down of the protectionism, because tine has come for new progress to be made,
That being the aim of the French Government it is simple logic that one
should fight against protectionism where protectionism is to be found and
not where it does not exist. When I speak of protectionist I mean in the
agriculturalas well as in the industrial field.
I welcome to see France taking actively jart in the fight against
protectionism. And I hope that France will not make the faul t of dragging
all the countries of the world into such a new scheme, if that might make
the solution of more acute problems unnecessarily complicated.
One more question, Mr. Chairman.
The French proposal speaks of coordinating tariff reductions and
special economic integration plans* I fear that this might lead us from
one form of protectionism into some other form of protectionism, even worse.
This I know, is not what the French Delegation is out for. I am
sure the French Delegation in bringing this proposal before the Contracting
Parties have been inspired by the wise words of the Canadian Minister of
Commerce, when he spoke to us the other day of people who falsely believe
that protectionism is necessary and who fear free competition.
Encouraged by the high intentions of the French proposal I feel that
these points must be of minor importance to the Frerch Delegation, and
could and should be disposed of in such a way that they would not prevent
the fight against protectionism and the maintenance of artificial, =even
competitive conditions, specially amongst the highly developed countries
in Europe and America. It is there the difficulties really lie.
I agree with the Delegation for the Netherlands that as the Contracting
Parties have already set up an intersessional working party to deal with
these difficulties it might cause confusion to set up another groups and I
suggest that the question should be discussed inside the working party
already set up. As the Contracting Parties invited the "Group of Ten",
who signed the Memorandum in Torquay, to submit considered proposals to the
Working Party, it might perhaps be useful, if the proposal was first discussed
between the 10 countries, if the French Delegation is prepared to do that.
We in the Danish Delegation fully appreciate the new document so promising
and encouraging as to further fruitful cooperation.
- 266 - |
GATT Library | cz603jg5679 | Statement by the Delegate of Belgium at the meeting of the Contracting Parties on 22 October regarding measures taken by the Belgian Government to deal with current financial problems | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 22, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 22/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/44 and GATT/CP.6/35-45 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cz603jg5679 | cz603jg5679_90070391.xml | GATT_140 | 2,327 | 14,729 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/44
TARIFFS AND TRADE 22 October 1951
ENGLISH ORIGINAL:FRENCH .H
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
Statement by the delegate of Belgium at the meeting of the
Contracting Parties on 22 October regarding measures taken
by the Belgian Government to deal with current financial problems.
The Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union is at present faced with a problem
of fundamental importance which may be briefly outlined as follows: the
Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union must ease the increasing inflationary pressure
imposed upon it by the accumulation of credits granted to foreign countries in
the course of the last few years. A solution to this problem can no longer
be deferred if the two countries are to protect their currency and avoid the
other evils of inflation.
By 30 September 1951, the foreign credits granted by the Belgo-Luxembourg
Economic Union had reached a figure of 19 billion Belgian francs: 12.6 billion
to the European Payments Union, a l oOanf 1.9 billion to the Organization for
European Economic Cooperation, plus credits up to 5.111 billion gross granted
within the framework of payments agreements, amounting to a total of 19,080
billion Belgian francs.
In terms of relative value, these figures represent for the Belgian
economy 7% of the national income for 1950, 12% of the monetarresery ves
for 1950, 23% of exports for 1950; that is to say a burden of 2,200 francs
per head of the populat.ion
Such an accumulation of credits is dangerous in itself. It is all the
more dangerous as such credits have been granted within a very short period.
In fact, nearly all our credits with respect to the European Payments Union
(12 billion francs) have occurred from January to September 1951, i.e. within
a period of nine months.
Under arrangements between the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and the
European Payments Union, am lup sum of 80 billion dollars in gold is made
available to Belgium and Luxembourg. Any credit theof BelLuxego-mbourg
Economic Union vàis--Vis the European Payments Union in excess of that amount
will have to be covered by further credits to be extended by the Belgo-
Luxembourg Economic Union.
At first sight, it would therefore seem that the Belgo-Iuxembourg Economic
Union has some respite and a certain margin. In fact, in ten days, the
credit position of the Belguxemboo-LurgEconomic Union with the European Payments
Union has already reached the figure of 30 million ladoars. In other words,
the margin available for the balance of 80 days of the period covered by this
transitional arrangement hardly reaches 50 million dollars. GAT/T/CP. 6/44
Page 2
To have a complete picture of the situation it should be added that the
increase in credits extended to the European Payments Union has altered to a
considerable degree the ratio between/ Central Bank's net amounts of convertible
and non-convertible currencies respectively. In facts in January 1950,
convertible currency holdings amounted to 766 million dollars, or 80% of a
total of 895 million dollars. In August 1951, such convertible holdings
dropped to 604 million dollars or 68% of a net total of 895 million dlilidn dollars.
It is therefore aind isputbleenthat udrgt and rastick action had to be
taken imf Belgiu wvoid injeere to a6i'd inj5 cting into its monetary circulation fresh
money arising from the accumulation by the Central Bank of credits in incon-
vertibl currencies.
On thDee bamsis of tgreehLae partental De ws4 of 6 October 194 relating to
the control ovf exechange ,e theGoernmnutems ofBlgium and lxbourg, inorder
to list to the. re.aet exteent possiblee tho olume of nowcredits wrhch the
g Economic UnionBelgo-'g ]cn ikoea would haveto'xtond tmo the European ayiets.
Unioon, adopmted res:the fVlowing nasux081
exp1. Limituropean payments ,ation of r orts to opqan Pat non count Vies:
yThis firest measure which pl meiyts he objective of-theGovernments.
ofRegium and Luxembourg is 'sef expla.netry.
om European Payments Union countries:ol m. fr o . nts n . ...:
parpse of such control is to permit a close. sctiy of all payments
received bey the Belgo-ULuxembourg Economic Unin from Europdn Payments tion
countries, soc as to 'ensure that th Belgo-Luxembourg EconomioUnidons positionn
within the European Payments nion shall be affected only by-receipts arising
from bona fides transactions. Each transaction must be submitted to the
exBmlga-Luxembourg-Exchange Control Board which,cnnes whether foreign
change which aeuthoriazed banks propose to sell, to their Bolian dn Luxembourg
timate patrons do not conceal, under cover of itin#to current transactions,
moelveemnts of flight capital ,socking topowaryhlilt In the absence of
esuch coentrols, the mcrdit position of the Pgo-Luxomourg Econo.- Union
within the European Payments Union would inevitably be liable to increase
abnormally at a specially inopportune time.
iate the proceeds in foreignnation th ob t eaDtritt gro in forei=
currencies of e rt U2W -,hmentg Ui oi.3ntrios
Since Belgian and Luxmbourg sls need not now surrender their earnings
in foreign currencieees, and may us them as they choose, the procos of certain
exports ar no locnger taken into account and this obviously oses the credit
position of the Belgo-Luxbourg Econori Union..
European Payments Union countriesoo~ f -2tortsj to EMRoan- Pavmgntos Uraon 92U="Cs
periodandth blkthe~ pfoja jij months Egrjd
eTh'prposc ef this measure is to make the oxprt trado crry a share of
thee credits granted by the Govenos of Bolgim and Luxembourg within the
frawork of European Paymnts Union agreements, and it is therefore in line
weith the general objective of thsogovernments. GATT/CP .6/41
Page 3
5. Restrictions imposed upon purchase of certain dollar goods:
At first sight, it might appear strange that a plan aimed at reducing
a creditor position should include a system of import restrictions. The
reason is simple. The purpose of this measure is to encourage purchases
in European Payments Union currencies by compelling Belgian and Luxembourg
importers to buy for a time from European Payments Union countries such non-
essential products as these are able to supply. Thus, the Belgo-Luxembourg
Economic Union will be in a position to make use - and this is the only way
for it to do so - of certain currencies of which it has a surplus and for
which unfortunately it has no use except in specific monetary areas. It is
hoped that this will further ease the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union's
creditor position towards the European Payments Union. This being said,
what exactly do these measures amount to?
As is well known, dollar imports into the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic
Union are subject to import licences or to a declaration procedure which
carries the authority of a licence.
Products admitted under the declaration procedure, which has the same
effect as an import licence, fall into three categories:
(a) Products which may be imported freely: here the former system
remains in force; authorized banks may visa the import declarations
without prior government authorization;
(b) products, the importation of which is subject to a previous
examination by the Central Quota and Licensing Board;
(c) prohibited imports. The interested parties whose declaration
is turned down by the Foreign Exchange Institute may, however, in
any such cases, appeal to the Central Quota and Licensing Board,
by filing an application for a licence.
In respect of products admitted under import licences the former system
remains in force.
Even at the risk of being repetitious, I should like to state once
more that all these measures have one purpose only: they tend to limit as
far as possible the amount of new credits which the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic
Union might have granted over and above those already granted. They form an
indivisible whole. From the point of view of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, the last in thc series is no doubt the most important one.
Though it was the first to be iplemented as a measure of conservation, as
early as 10 September 1951, it is, like all the others, only an element of
an integrated policy, and I beg you to consider it as such. Please do not
pass judgment on it as if it were a simple restrictive measure sure and do not
apply to it any of the conventional criteria generally adduced to justify
measures of that kind.
In order to prove that it is the unavoidable consequence of a policy
aimed at limiting inconvertible credits thereby avoiding inflation, I should
like only to quote the following except from the report of the European GATT/CP.6/44
Page 4
Payments Union Steering Committee dated 9 October 1951:
"In order to increase the volume of imports from European
Payments Union countries, the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union
has granted such imports preferential treatment by extending to
them the benefit of special credit facilities and by applying
controls aimed at r-t producing the volume of imports from the dollar
.area At present ab38%out , of imports from North America into
the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union are so controlled (according
to figures relating to actual imports for the first half of 1951).
Committee wishes to stress that part which these restrictions
will play in the development of the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union
as an import m arket for new goods and commodities produced in
theE uroepan Payments Union countries will largely depend on the
firmness and rigour with which these restrictions will be enforced
and on the necessity in which Belgian importers will therebyf ind
themselves able to buy from European Payments Union countries goods
which they so far have eebn purchasing in the dollar area".
(Non-authentic translation)
The conclusion may be drawn from the foregoing that the restrictions
imposed by the BelgoLuxembourg Ec-omzbourg-BSonomic Union on imports from the dollar
area are in fact exchange restrictions or more correctly measures through
which exchange restrictions are made effective. Their legal basis is to
be found in the deepartmental dcree-law of 6 October 1944 relating to
foreign exchange ncontrol. O the other hand, as you have seen,the first
body calld upon to grant or to deny permits is the Exchrnge Control In-
stitut; the Licensing Board intervenes later with a view to safeguarding
the interest of the domestic market. In these ,conditions it cannot be
oubted that the measures come ucnder A`tiee XV, paragraph 9.of the General
A.greement
I wish to stress thaet mthe Govrnents of Belgium and Luxembourg have had
no protectmionist ai in view, and that they hope to limit to a minimum the
durateion of thse measures.
The qustson as to whethwer theey vll bceliminated wholly within a not
too distant future will depend on the results achieved through the imple-
mentation of the new regulations and controls. Iever, am, how convinced
that the first one whose removal will be considered will be that relating to
imports from the dollar area.
Such a abrogation, however, could only be decided if the Belgo-
uxembourg Economic Union remains in a position to settle its considerable
deficit towards the dollar area - 11 billion Belgian francs for 1950, 8.5
billion Belgian francs for the first six months of 1951 and a probable amount
of 16 to 17 billion francs for the whole of 1951.
However, this is a problem of the future and not one which we are
called upon to analyse atj this uncture, since the restricetivee masurs,
the nature and inevitability of which I have described, eehave bn envisaged
exclusively with a view to easing the LBeelgo-uxmbourg Economic Union's
credit position in the Europeaen sPaymnt Union. GATT/CP. 6/44
Page 5
Belgium has resorted to restrictive measures with the greatest
reluctance. Nothing could be more in contradiction with the traditions,
the philosophy and the policies of my countries than measures of that kind.
After the war, Belgium was the first country to tread the path that lead
to the liberalization of trade. Perhaps our pace was too quick. If,
as a precautionary measure, we had maintained the system of restrictions
which was in force three years ago vis-à-vis the dollar area, no one would,
I believe, have complained and I should not have to account for Belgium's
attitude here today. In spite of the restrictions recently enforced,
Belgium remains in the lead among liberal countries. Nothing in our recent
action, at all events, is ground for the assumption that Belgium is about
to alter the fundamentals of its commercial policy.
In the last few days,the press has stressed the steadily increasing
surpluses in Belgium's balance of payments and some surprise is felt that,
in such conditions, we have deemed it necessary to impose import restrictions.
It cannot truthfully be that there exists "the imminent threat of a
serious decline" in our monetary reserves. But I believe I have given
evidence that there is a serious underlying threat to our financial sta-
bility. And, after all, that is the only thing that really matters.
Monetary reserves are not the sole criterion of the Financial health of a
country. The disease should be studied both in itself and as a whole.
I have expounded to you - perhaps somewhat at length - the reasons
which lead us temporarily to enforce restrictive measures. I have quoted.
Article XV:9 of the General Agreement as the most relevant in our case and
the one that we should be entitled to invoke. But I do not intend to
impose this opinion upon you without any discussion. The situation of the
country is so special and furthermore the text of the General Agreement is
so complex and sometimes so cryptic that one may well understand that the
settlement of certain delicate matters may give rise to differences of
opinion and some hesitation. Belgium will be very pleased to settle her
problem in consultation and in agreement with the Contracting Parties. But
she would hope that a decision would not be reached on the basis of narrow
criteria under which condemnation of these measures would be a foregone
conclusions . We intend to abide by the rules of the General Agreement; but
we have the right to ask that such rules be applied to us and that we be
judged in a spirit of understanding and justice. I feel sure this will be
the case. |
GATT Library | kc689bx2610 | Statement by the Delegate of Belgium at the meeting of the Contracting Parties on 22 October regarding measures taken by the Belgian Government to deal with current financial problems | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 22, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 22/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/44 and GATT/CP.6/35-45 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kc689bx2610 | kc689bx2610_90070391.xml | GATT_140 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | zs740yp4311 | Statement by the Delegatoins of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands concerning the possible effects of the Schumann plan on certain items in schedule II | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 2, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 02/04/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/7 and GATT/CPS/1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zs740yp4311 | zs740yp4311_90330209.xml | GATT_140 | 242 | 1,621 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED C
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CPS/7 April 1951
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SPECIAL SESSION
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATOINS OF
BELGIUM, LUXEMBOURG AND THE NETHERLANDS
CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS
OF THE SCHUMANN PLAN ON CERTAIN ITTEMS IN
SCHEDULE II
Paragraph 20 of the Draft Convention relating to the interim provisions
for the European Coal/Steel Pool requires that the members of the Pool should
secure from the Contracting Parties authorization for the preference included
in the Draft Treaty setting up the European Coal/Steel Pool. Under
paragraph 15 of the Convention, the Benelux countries agree to take certain
steps including the establishment of tariff quotas with a view to : oiding,
during the interim period when duties on steel will be harmonied, importation
of the latter product in transit through the Benclux cuntries on account of
the lower rates of duties obtaining therein, into the territories of other
members of the Pool. They further undertake, at the expiration of this period
of harmonisation, to increase, if necessary, their rates of duty on steel, by
two points at most - i.e. 2% ad valorem.
If the Benelux countries revalidate their Geneva and Lnnecy schedules,
they will do so on the understanding that the decision which the Contracting
Parties will be called upon to take under the authorission revised for in
paragraph 20 of the Conventicn will enable then to carry out the obligation
included in paragraph 15 of the said Convention. |
GATT Library | xn250gk9208 | Statement of contributions received and contributions outstanding as at 31 May 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 12, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 12/06/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/117 and GATT/CP/117 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xn250gk9208 | xn250gk9208_90310063.xml | GATT_140 | 300 | 2,214 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP/117
12 June 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED AND CONTRIBUTIONS
OUTSTANDING AS AT 31 MAY 1951
I
1948-1949 Contributions
1.
Contributions of Contracting Parties
Outstanding as at 31 May 1951
Contracting Parties
2. Contributions to expenses of Annecy Conference
Number
1
2
U.S. Dollars
3,750.00
1, 800. C.
II
Contributions Outstanding as at 31 May 1951
1. Contributions of Contracting Parties
2. Contributions to expenses of Torquay
Conference
III
1951
1. Contributions received as at 31 May 1951
2. Contributions of Contracting Parties
outstanding as at 31 May 1951
3. Contributions becoming due on accession
18
14
7
215, 147.51
= 67.28%
$ 77,762,74
= 24,32%
$ 26,872,50
8.40%
1950
5
3
28,254 .71
10.902, 53 GATTOP/117
Page 2,
IV
STATEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OUTSTANDING
AS AT 31 MAY 1951
a) Contracting Parties:
Category Country
E
F.
Canada *
Australia
Brazil *
China
Italy *
Czechoslovakia **
Denmark
Chile
Greece
Indonesia
Lebanon
Liberia
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Syria
1948-1949
$
1951
13,436.25
10,749.00
10,581,49
3,750.00 10,601.72
10,601.72 10,749,00
5,374. 50
5,374.50
1,750,41 2,687,25
2,687,25
2,687,25
2,687,25
2,687,25
900.00 2,650.43 2,687.25
2,687,25
2,650.43 2 687.25
Total of
Contribution :
Outstanding.
13,436.25
10,749.00
10, 581.49
14,351.72
21,350.72
5,374.50
5,374, 50
4,437.66
2,687,25
2, 687.25
2,687.25
2,687.25
6, 237.68
2, 687.25
5,337.68
4.650.00 6220 671181,2
. b) Acceding Governments:
category Country
Federal Republic
of Germany **
Philippines
Uruguay
1948-1949
1950
5.,601,72
2,650.43
900.00 2.650.43
900.00 10.902.58
110,667,45
Total of
Contributionis
Outstanding
5,601,72
2,650,43
3,550,43
11,802.58
* The Executive Secretary has been notified that the contribution will be paid
in the near future,
** Czechoslovakia's contribution received in June 1951,
*** The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has paid $5,000,00 as its
contribution to the expenses of the Torquay Conference,
E |
GATT Library | mk335tm4540 | Statement of the Danish representative at the Second Meeting | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 31, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 31/03/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/3 and GATT/CPS/1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/mk335tm4540 | mk335tm4540_90330205.xml | GATT_140 | 1,292 | 7,869 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
LIMIITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CPS/3 31 March 1951
CONTRACTING PARTIES ORIGINAL ENGLISH
Special Session, 1951
STATEMENT OF THE DANISH
REPRESENTATIVE AT THE SECOND MEETING
Mr. Chairman,
In January, February, and the first part of March delegates
from a number of couhtries have met informally here in Torquay in
order to discuss the results in the field of European tariffs, which
could be expected frem the bilateral negotiations during the
Torquay-Conference.
The initiattive was taken by our colleagues from the benelux
countries, who invited some European delegates to participate in
these informnal discussions. Invited were delegates from U.K.,
France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Also
delegates from U.S.A. and Canada were invited and took part in the
discussions, the Canadian delegate as an observer. Greece and
Turkey were represented by observers.
The delegates taking part in the discussions agreed to ask me
to conduct the meetings, and that is tho reason why I today have the
honour to introduce to this special meeting of the Contracting Par-
ties the Memorandum, which came. to bc the result of the discussions.
As you will remember, the special question of the. disparities
in European tariffs was mentioned during the fourth session of the
Contracting Parties in Geneva a year ago. When at that time we
discussed the prpblem of the revalidation of the Geneva and Annecy
concessions, the Benelux delegations made a reservation so far as
they made it clear, that their position as to the rebinding would
very much depend on the establishment of a better equilibrium as
far as the European tariffs were concerned. My delegation made
a similar reservation.
The most imp important question was of cpurse not the probelm,
whether some countries would rebind or not, but the European tariff
problem itself. The rcason why this problem has become of so great
importance is obvious, namely the increasing liberalization of
trade.
What was the use of liberalizing trade if high tariffs still
hampered trade?
Was it just that all European countries to the same degree
should liberalize trade following a simple, automatic scheme, when
tariffs differed widely from one country to another?
Was it not to be preferred that better equilibrium in the
field of European tariffs should be reacched by lowering high tariffs
than by raising low tariffs?
Such questions had earlier been raised in the OPEC and dis-
cussed inside the OPEC. In the OPEC it was agreed in October last
year that one in due time should examine the outcome of the Torquay
negotiations and see whether the results of these negotiations
solved the existing probelms. GATT/CPS/3
Page 2
Following the invitation of the Benelux-delegations, the
delegates who were invited found it useful to devote some time to
discuss, in an informal way, the probable results of the Torquay-
negotiations. The conclusions they at the end of lenghty dis-
cussions arrived at are set forward in the Memorandum, which you
have before you today.
It is not necessary for me add much to what is in the
Memorandum itself, but a few comments might be useful.
As you will see, the Memorandum is signed by the delegates
for all the aforementioned European countries, except the U.K., and
signed by the delegates in their capacity as government representa-
tives. Also the U.S. delegate has signed the Memorandums
The conclusions, the signatories have arrived at, are that they
agree, that a European tariff-problem still exists in spite of the
results achieved at Torquay, that in other words the important result
of the Torquay-negotiations have not solved the basic problem, that
has been discussed so much inside the OEEC,
They further agree, that it is of great importance to try to
find ways and means to reach a better balance in the tariff-field,
for which reason it might be useful to ask the Contracting Parties
to set up an interscssional Working Party to consider the problem
further and to report to the sixth session of the Contracting
Parties
They suggest, that the Working Party should keep in close
contact with the OEEC. The reason for this is, of course, that the
problem is first of all of importance to the European countries, but
on the other hand it could not be solved without taking due account
to the rules of the GATT.
In the Memorandum a suggestion is made as to the terms of
reference of the proposed Working Party. Other suggestions right
of course be discussed. On the other hand one must have in mind, that
it is perhaps at the moment not possible to be more precise as to the
terms of reference. When work begins, the Working Party itself may
find that it is necessary to have some changes as far as the terms
of reference are concerned, and the Working Party may therefore Make
sugar sticns in that respect, when reporting to the sixth session
in September this year.
The task, The Working Party will have to perform, is an importers
as well as a very difficult one, but it is necessary that the work
begins as soon as possible, and as work proceeds, it will perhaps be
felt useful to make some Adjustments.
At any rate, it is of importance to realize that it is a problem
of a dual nature: it is a European problem to be dealt with in the
li ht of the GATT.
In the Memorandum it is suggested, that the Working Party should
be composed of contracting parties and acceding governments which are
associated with OEEC, And that the Working Party should be authorized
to invite other contracting parties or members of the OEEC to partici-
pate in the work. It is also suggested that the working Party should
meet, at such places aa s it may determine. GATT/CPS/3
Page 3
These suggestions reflect that the whole problem is a
European problem first of all. I think that it should be made
clear to all that what has been in the minds of the signatories
is that the Working Party should meet in Paris, where the European
countries already have economic experts who have, before this
special question was raised inside the GATT, discussed the
European tariff problems in the light of the trade liberalization
and the European integration plans.
Some delegations might therefore be of the opinion, that the
special problem for the moment could be dealt with entirely inside
the OEEC.
On the other hand, other delegations have rightly pointed out,
that the problem also is of interest to the GATT, and for that reason
we reached the compromise, that the Working Party should be set up
as a GATT-Working Party, and should report to the GATT, so that the
Contracting Parties would be kept informed of the work as it proceeds.
Personally I am in favour of a compromise along these lines,
and it is the hope of all the signatories, that the proposed compromise
could be accepted by all, and that everybody primarily concerned with
the problems raised will participate in the work and try to reach the
best results possible. As work proceeds, we shall be able to make the
adjustments, for which need may be felt, and already in September
the matter can be reconsidered by the Contracting Parties. I can
assure you that the informal discussions, that took place, have been
both lengthy and difficult, and I think it would be valuable if we
could agree to the suggested compromise, at any rate give it a fair
chance to show its merits or demerits.
In concluding my remarks I would like on behalf of the
signatories to the Memorandum to thank the Chair for having called
.this special session of the Contracting Parties to deal with the
question. |
GATT Library | nc197bf1923 | Statistics on Import, Production and Employment provided by the United States Delegation | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 28, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Contracting Parties, and Intersessional Working Party on Article XIX | 28/03/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/IW.1/4 and GATT/IC/SR.1-3 IC/SR.4-11 GATT/IC/1-8 IC/W/1-23 CP/IW.1/1-3 GATT/CP/IW.1/4 GATT/IW.2/1-14 IW.2/15-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nc197bf1923 | nc197bf1923_91850028.xml | GATT_140 | 1,070 | 7,714 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED W
GATT/OP/IW.1/4 .
28 March 1951
ORIGINIL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
INTERSESSIONAL WORKING PARTY ON ARTICLE XIX
'Statistics on Import, Production and Employment provided
by the United States Delegation
Table l.- Imports of women's fur-felt hat bodies into the
United States., January-November 1950,
classified by value brackets.
(Figures as originally published. have been revised to
include certain wornen's: hat bodies previously erroneously
reported as men's hats).
*January through
Value bracket : As Published
.: (n
: nur
Valued not over $6 per
dozen --------------
Valued over $6, not
over S9 per dozen --
Valued over $9, not
over $12 per dozen -
Valued over $12, not
over $15 per dozen -
Valued over &15, not
over S18 per dozen -
Valued over $18, not
over $24 per dozen -
Valued over $24, not
over $30 per dozen -
Valued over $30, not
over $48 per dozen -
Valued over $48 per
dozen -------------
Total --------
1,
actual.
iber) :
25,808
29,528
86.9,557 :
128,595
233,55$
206,693 :
57,112:
109,517 :
12 330 :
S7,698'
v alue
$18,682 :
21,469 .
753,173
1,240,589 :
296,436 :
359,786 :
129,360 .
287, &841
1085,712
.3, 215.,712 :
November 1950
#XS.rov~i.sc&
Quantity value
(in actual
number)
26,888: $19,527
29,528: 21,469
992,004: 858,658
1,361,983' 1,508,379
242,787: 316,509
233,535: 404,175
58,272: 131,895
150,971: 392,039
12,403: 109, 209
3, 108,3,71. 3.761, 860
. : - - IqL
25 GATT/CP/IW.1/4
Page 2.
Table 3.- Women's fur felt hat bodies:: United States production, 1/ and imports for consumption,
by months, 1948, 1949, and January - November 1950
(Note.- Table: includes for 1950 thc reported imports: of men's hats valued up to $30 per dozen. It is believed
that all such hats were actually women's hat bodies: but incorrectly classified. This note applies only to 19.
It is believed that none were misclassified before that tr-,<c.)
,I n-ty - n . %
- , - ~~~~~~~~~(.,u,,)nt;Lty ;Ln dozens)
: - : . Month -- U.S. production U.S. imports for consuMption
- : . - . .1948 1949 . 1950 2/ 194.8 1949
January--
February -------------------
14,,irch----------------------------~~~~~----
April------ --- ---- ----------------
.-a--------------- ----------------------
June ---- ---_-____-___________
July-----------------------------------
August-- ----------------------
September-------------------------------
October------- ------------------
November-------- - -------- --------
Decomber-----------------
Total-._.-__;_______________
: 51,-560
:-24,768
22, 815
: - 27,3&0
: 45,505
: .96,029
: -81,935
:92,252
76,672
60,315
33,772
* __36,423
: 629,235
17,060
13,157
26,032
49,262
76,012
71,120
77,085
81,882
54,357
32,495
_45,180
565,768
14,025 :
18,188 - ::
.23,512 :
53,730 :
* 72,593
94,397 :
125,678 :
.87,448
62,538 :
33,969 :
n.a. :
Y 607,265 :
j./ Productbon is based on shipments rcportc&- morlthly to the H~at Institute Inc., by its members, andc estimated to covqr
of the total United States in'lustry. The Arata in thc table have been adjusted to cover 100 percent of thc total
the United States. Lotual shipments (as reported) nd production. ray dliffer consider bly from month to month, bu
normally low inventories at the end of the calendar year would differ little from year to ycar.
3 Preliminary.
Eleven months only.
Source: Compiled from statistics supplied by the Hat Institute Inc.
I. __ 7-l rn n n ^ - o n0 -1b-
72
898
.1,346
1,391
3,935
.6,945
11,312
10,556
6,232
1,694
82
44.%64.6
-lb,-
188.
1,747
1,639-
5,796
7,352
19,893
22,069
30,616
22,291
6,090
2,681
120,511
.
I
II
I
.. .3
.:Q GATT/CP/IW.1/4
Page 3
Ermployment and Unemployment Statistics
Relevant to the Situation in the Fur Felt Hat Industry
January 1947 to June 1950
1947 1948 1949 '1950 Jan.to June
Description Average Index Average :Index.Average Index ' Average Index
Number Number Niumber ' Number based on
Jan. to
Junem'47
Production & 12,794,000 100 12,717,000 99.4 11,597,000 90.6
related wor-
kers in all
manufacturing
(1)
' 11,660,000
Production workers
in fur felt hat
and hat body
industry (1) 11,500 100
10,900 94.5
9,300 80.9 '
6,800 77. 2
weekly hours
of produc-
tion & re-
lated workers
in mannufac-
turing (')
Vieekly hours of
production wor-
kers in fur felt
hat & hat body
industry (1)
40.4 100
36.9 100
40e1 . 99.3
36.5 98. 9
39.2 97.0 '
35.3 95.7 '
Employment in
the hat in-
dustry in
Norwalk(1)
tJnemployment
in Norwalk(1)
2,453
1,500
100
100
2,565 104.6
900 69. 2
2,164 100.4
1,800 138.5 '
2,,408 97. 1
2,000 125.0
Employment
in the hat
industry in
Danbury(l)
4,626 100
4,584 99.1
4,109 88.8 '
Unemployment
in Danbury (1)
1,200
100
1,500 125.0
2,000 166.7 '
1,900 146.2
Source: U.S. Department of Labor
Source: Hat Institute
Brtsed on monthly average for full year 1947;
half year not avn1ailbe
Tablle 4.
39.9
344,7
98.8
92.8
(21
(3)
4,003
88. 2
I
I Document I
Number Language Short Title of Document
Intersessional Working Party on the Reduction
of Tariff Levels
Symbol: GATT/IW.2/
1 E.F. Resolution or April 1951 and Terms of
Reference and Membership
2 E.F. Statement by Danish Delegate at Sixth
Meeting of the Sixth Session
3 E.F. Note on Programme of Work
4 E.F. Report of Drafting Group on Extended Terms
of Reference (draft resolution)
4/Corr.1 Bil. Corrigendum
5 E.F. Note by French Delegation re French Proposal
for a General Lowering of Customs Tariffs
5/Corrl E. only Corrigendum
6 E.F. Memorandum of the Belgian and Netherlands
Delegation.
6/Corr.1 Bil. Corrigendum withdrawing document GATT/IW.2/6
7 E.F. Memorandum by Frenich Delegation re French
Proposal for a General Lowering of Customs
Tariffs. (Meeting of Sub-Group, London,
December 1951)
8 E.F. Record of First Meeting of SubGroup, London
13-15 December 1951
9 E.F. Recommendation adopted by Council of Europe
on a Common Policy of lowering Tariff Barriers
in Europe
9/Add.l E.F. Resolution of International Chamber of
Commerce
10 E.F. Proposals submitted by Benelux Delegations:
(a) Grouping of Tariff Items; (b) Reduction
of High Duties Document Language
Number Language Short Title of Document
Numberg
Symbol: GATT/IW.2/
11
12
12/Corr.l
13
14
Symbol: IW.2/
15
E.F.
E.f
E. only
Bil.
E. F.
E.F.
E. F.
16/Corr.2 E. only
Observations by German Delegation re
Benelux Proposals on Grouping of Commodities
Note by German Delegation on Exclusion from
Weighted Average of Items for which Imports
from non-Gatt Countries exceed 50%
Corrigendim
Proposal by German Delegation re Products
from non-Gatt Countries
Proposal by French Delegation on Grouping
of Items
Record of Second Meeting of Sub-Group, Geneva,
26 February to 1 March 1952
Report of the Sub-Group. (Third Meeting,
Genevam 15-25 July 1952)
Corrigendum |
GATT Library | cj199dw4582 | Status of protocols and schedules | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 25, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/20/Rev.1 and GATT/CP.6/20-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cj199dw4582 | cj199dw4582_90070353.xml | GATT_140 | 1,651 | 13,007 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/20/Rev .1
25 October 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
STATUS OF PROTOCOLS AND SCHEDULES
A. STATUS OF PROTOCOLS
1. Torquay Protocol
Not signed by
Last day for signature
Brazil
Chile
Denmark
Nicaragua
United Kingdom
Korea
Philippines
Uruguay
2. Annecy Protocol
Uruguay
3. Protocols in force but not accepted
by all contracting parties
31 December 1951
"
"
"
31 March 1952
22 May 1952
30 April 1952
30 April 1952
Not accepted by
Protocol 2 - Special Protocol
relating to Article XXIV
Protocol 7 - Protocol modifying
Article XXVI
4 Potocols not yet in force2
Protocol 4 - Protocol modifying
Part I and Article XXIX
Protocol 9 - Replacing Schedule VI
(Ceylon)
First Protocol of Modifications
Fourth Protocol of Rectifications
Fifth Protocol of Rectifications
Not signed by
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Nicaragua
1The Brazilian Delegation at the Sixth Session indicated that its government would
be prepared to deposit an instrument of acceptance in the near future.
2 These protocols will enter into force when Chile and Nicaragua have signed the
Torquay Protocol.
Brazil 1
Chile GATT /CP. 6/20/Rev.1
Page. 2 ',,
,. .!.
' .
B. STATUS OF SCHEDULES
Sc of hedule ProlclsPrt Pro-
Rectificatons tocol of tocol of
4th 2 3rd :Ls5th difi- Rectifica- Other changes and
cations tions and Remarks
Modifca-
Geneva Schedule
Australia x x x x replaced by Protocol
II .
Benelux xxx x x x x .-
x
--s-I I I
xx
x
Assured life of Geneva
Schedule has not been
extended beyond 1 Ja-
nuary 1951. Time limit
for notification bringin,
Annecy Schedule into
force extended to 31
Decembe ' 5
Application of items
negotiated with Colombia
and Uruguay at Annecy
withheld (GATT/CP 4/6/
Add9 /Corr. )
Geneva Schedule replaced
by Protocol 9 Concession
resulting froi Article
XVIII' rele-ases,
1 Not in force
*The following concessions
measures of control
were granted by
Ceylon
in ccpnsation for the effect of
Concession Rates
. ___
E 312 Agricultural Machinery
Ex 325 Non-domestic refrigerators
15%
27j
Prefer,
5%
22j
Under the terms of agreement reached in the negotiations between Ceylon and the
interested parties under Article XVIII, these concessions may not be operative beyond
1th .period of the release granted under Article XVIII i~. up to March 30 295
(Cf. GAT/CP.4/12 and 32).
I * .. . . 3
III
Brazil
x
1 1
X
X X
_ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ ____ _ m
IV ' . . ..,,. ...-
Burn x. ..
x x x
V
Canada
VI
Ceylon
x x
x x
x
VII
Chile
I' I
x
x
a I
x GATT/CR.6/20/Rev.1
Page 3.
U q
Schedule
bMI2921L
39 WZi diW
1st Pro-
tocol of
Modifi-
catim
1st Pro-
tocol of
Rectifica-
tions and
Modfca-
tions
. ________~~&A ,___ __ _____
IX
Cuba
xx x
X
Czecho-
slovaki
x
x
I ..? -
x X x
Other Changes
Remarks
and
I
Application of Agreement
withheld from all Annecy
and Torquay acceding
governments except Haiti
under Article XXXV (GATT/
TN.l33 and GATT/CP/U1).
Authorized continue nego-
tiations under ArtXXVIII
with the U.S. on item
253 B in Part II
(ATT/CP. (7
Item 2, negotiated with
U.K. (for Palestine) with-
drawn (GATT/CP/23). Items
negotiated with Colombia
and Uruguay at Annecy
withheld (.TT/CP/40/
Add.16)
France
Xx
K
x
x
XII Application of Agrement
India x x X ; x withheld from S, frica
under Article XXXV
L_ . TT.T1T C .2 4) . -
XIII
New x x
Zeala _ _U
X K __ __ ___ _ _
V . Application of Schedule
Pakistan x X x x X x x x withheld from S. Africa
under rticle
G,/CP ._4)
Rhod_ a _
XVIII Application of Agreement
SAfrica x x x x x x x . x to India and Pakistan
withheld as result of
action by those two
countries under Article
~~~ ~ ~~ _ _ _ _______ XXV GATT/CP. 6/20/Rev.1
Page 4.
Schedule Protocols of 1st Pro- 1st Pro-
Rectifications tocol of tocol of Other Changes & Remarks
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Modifi- Rectifit .,;.
Jtons naions &
Modifi.
cations
x x x
x x x
x
x
Sections B (Newfoundland),
C. (Dependent Territories)
and E (Palestine)
.deleted (GATT/CP/32,
pp.30 & .25 & CP6/43)
Withdrawal of certain
concessions negotiated
with China (GATT/,CP/115)
Ilication of items
negotiateAd at nnecy
with Uruguay, withheld
(GTT/0CP/4oAdd.6 &
.1Corr).
Application of Agreement
withheld from Philippines
under Art .XXXAV (GTT/CP/
.109)
Withdrawal of part item
1526(a) unAder rt.XIX
(G.T/CP/106) Modif
ofem it30 15(c)
(GTT/CP/122/Add .1) .
Suspension of obligations
to Czechoslovakia
A(GTCT/P/126).
o1Nt in force
XIX
United
Kingdom
x
x
XX
United
States
x x x
_ ___ f_*~~~~i'__' _
XXI x x x x x x x
Indonesia
~~~~~ . ___
I GATT/GP.20/Rev.14
Page 5
- ,, . . . . . . . - . . I . .
Schedule
X X
Protocols of
P j , _ f n
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
x
1st Pro-
tocol of
Modifi-
cations
st-Pro-
tcol of
Rectifi
tions &
Modifica-
tions_
x
Other Changes
& Remarks
Modification of ite ez
S(GdrCP/51)
Amendment of ArtXXVIII
will not be effective for
Denmark until signature
Torquay Protocol bub Den-
mark has undertaken not
avail self of provisions
ofArtXXVIII pending a
decision on the matter by
its Parliament
Application of Agreement
to Cuba withld
a result of action by
Cuba under Art#XXVs
UII t Application of Agreemeni
Domiican X x x x to Cuba withheld as
Republd reasult of action by Cub4
_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u n d e r A rt .X X X V .
XXIV Application of Agreement
Finland x x x
of action byCubz
____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u n d e r A r t,X X X V t
xxV Items negotiated with
Gre x x. x . ,x .X ia-Leanon at Annecy
withheld (GATT/CP/40/
Add.9).
Application of Agreement
to Cuba withheld as -
result of action by Cube
. " . . . m~~~~~~~nd ar A rtXMX
XXVI
XXVII
~W x x x x x. ,
.v. . . Application of Agreement
to Cuba withheld as
result of action by Cuba
. . . _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _. _ __ .un d r ArthX XX V ,
XVIII Application of Agreenp
Liberia x to Cuba withheld as
result of action by Cuba
o r e _ _ * --
Not erce.
xxii
Denmark
. . .. I GATT/CP.6/20/Rev.1
Page 6
- ......... ....~~~~~
if ati
lo2n 3r6 4h 5th
.~~~~~~~~~~~
.~~~~~~~~~~~~
lt Pro-
tocol of
Modifi -
uions
lt Pro-
tocol of
Rectifi.
mtons &
Modifi
ctions
Other Cha'es&Remarks
:~. . .,
sred life of Anlec
2O=fj j Schedule has not been
Nicaragua x x extended beyond 1 Jan.1951.
Application of Agreement to
Cuba withheld as result of
action by Cuba under Art. V
Application of item ex 63
XX , §negotiated at Annecy with
Sweden x x x X Colombia withheld (ATT/CP/
40/Add .14.
pplication nof Ageement to
Cuba withheld as result of
action by Cuba under
.Y_"Sm V
X x
Extension of time for
signature to 31 April 1952
of bth Annecy & Torquay
Protocols (GATT/CP.6/46)
Application of Agreemet
to Cuba wi 1 ot be required
as result of ation by
bn udc At..XXX.
xxir I Appication of Agreement
Austria to Cuba withheld as result
of action by Cuba uper
Application o Agreement
XXXIII to Cuba with1l as result
Germany x of action by Cuba under
art .XXXV
Application of Agreement
XXV . . . to Cuba will. not be re-
Korea x quired as result of action
Application of Agreement to
XXXV Cuba withheld a result of
Peru x action by Cuba under Art .
Application of Agreement
to Cuba & the United States
will not be required as
result of action by these
two goverments under
V.
Application of Agreement to
Cuba withheld as result of
*I by uba ur AXK0Y
1 Not in force
XXXI
Uruguay
XXX
Ph411rini
.. .
Turkey I
I ?
x
__ I : .I :
IV -6 mm
X-IXI.
-1
._ GATT/CP.6/20/Rev. 1
Page 7
Action by contracting parties in withholding and withdrawing concessions
Countries with Action by Contracting Contracting Parties which
which negotia- Parties under Article carried out negotiations
tions were XXVII or Annecy Pro- but have not withdrawn or
carried out tocol of Accession withheld concessions
Schedule _
~~~~~~~~~~.4.
III Brazil
VIII China
XVII Syria-
ebanon
XIX United
Kingdom
Section
Palestine
U.S.- Article XXVII -withdrawal
of 67 out of about 90 items or
part-itms naegotiated with Chin4
and or1quential changes in the
preAferCPOent)ial rates (GTT/115
S. Africa- Withdrawal of rost-
favoured-natioon treatment but n
change to Schledule as items al
negotiated with at least one
other asA welP/l as China (GTT/C
iL'dol)
Greece - withholding of 3 items
under Aparagraph 4 of nnecy
Protocol
?---
Withdrawal of one item by
Czechosleovakia under Articl
XVII
- - - -I ?
XXXI Uruguay
Colaia
(o Schedule)
Withholding under paragraph 4
of nnecy Protocol
Canada - 6 ites
Czechoslovakia - 4 items
M. - 8 items
Withholding under paragraph 4
of Ancy prtocol
Canada - 4 items
Czechoslovakia - 4 items
S1wedemen - it
Republic
Finax
ItaIy
Sweden
UMUMaZ
Autralia Czecho.
Bci France
Brazil India
ama N !1.
an da Norway
Cn;, )U.K.
ub
Australia 5t.^ _
,s I
B. 1l x
Denmark
Finland
Italy
Sweden
Uruguay*
Czecho. Italy
France
U.K.
U.S
/CP.3'. ..te-; )
L . .. ...
. X/ 1
Chil
Irdar
F.nce
aly
NZealand
lway
Sweden
UMingFom
BraziL
Ch e
or.a
Urugay*
*Tim limit extended for application of uicy Schedies of Brazil
and Uruguay.
IC 1 tII94 i
E = a3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---M0
~~I
____ __
#S _ . |
GATT Library | wt374yh9163 | Status of protocols and schedules of the General Agreement | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 14, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Conracting Parties | 14/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/20 and GATT/CP.6/20-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wt374yh9163 | wt374yh9163_90070351.xml | GATT_140 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | ks665qz8440 | Status of protocols and schedules of the General Agreement | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 14, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/20 and GATT/CP.6/20-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ks665qz8440 | ks665qz8440_90070351.xml | GATT_140 | 1,942 | 14,289 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/ 20
14 September 1951
ORlGINAL: ENGLISH
CONRACTING PARTIES
STATUS OF PROTOCOLS AND SCHEDULES OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT
The outstanding protocols, together with the names of the contracting
Parties which, according to information received to date from the headquartors
of the United Nations, have not yet signed or accepted them, are listed below.
This list includes the Torquay Protocol, signature of which, according to its
paragraph 7, constitutos acceptance of all other protocols.
There is also set cut in tabular form the present status of the schedules
to the General Agreement.
A STATUS OF PROTOCOLS
1. Protocols in force but not accepted
by all contracting parties
Protocol 2 - Special Protocol
relating to Article XXIV
protocol 7 - Protocol nodifying
Article XXVI
2. Protocols not yet in force
Protocol 4 - Protocol modifying
Part I and Article XXIX
Protocol 8 - Replacing Schedule I
(Australia)
Protocol 9 - Replacing Schedule VI
(Ceylon)
First Protocol of Modifications
Third Protocol of Rectifications
Fourth Protocol of Rectifications
Fifth Protocol of Rectifications
Not accepted or signed by
Brazil
Burma
Burma
Chile
Chile
Burma
Chile
Chile
Chile
Burma
Chile
Indonesia
Nicaragua GATT/CP.6/20
Page 2.
3. Torguay Protocol Not accepted or
signed by
(last day for signature:
21 October)
Note 1:
Note 2:
Australia
Brazil
Burma
Chile
Denmark *
Haiti
India
Indonesia
Italy
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Union of S. Africa
United Kingdom
Austria
Korea
Philippines *
Turkey
Uruguay
The amendment of Article XXVIII altering the assured life of the
schedules from 1 January 1951 to 1 January 1954 will become effective
for those contracting parties which have signed the Torquay Protocol
when the Torquay Protocol has been signed by 4 more governments
Germany signed the Torquay Protocol on 1 September and Peru on
7 September. These two countries will therefore apply the Agreement
and their Schedules as from 1 and 7 October resectively to all
governments which are at that time contracting parties and to other
governments as and when they become contracting parties. All
contracting parties, whether or not they have signed the Torquay
Protocol, unless they have taken action under Article XXXV, must apply
the Agreement and their Geneva and Annecy Schedules to Germany as from
1 October and to Peru as from 7 Octobers Contracting parties, unless
they have taken action under Article XXXV, must apply their Torquay
Schedules to Germany and Peru from those dates, or on the thirtieth
day following their own signature of the Torquay Protocol whichever
is the later.
* Denmark and the Philippines have requested a prolongation of the time
allowed for signature (Documents GATT/CP.6/6 and Add.1). GATT/CP. 6/ 20
Page 3.
B. STATUS OF SCHEDULES
Schedule Protocols of lst Pro-
Rectifications tocol of Other Changes & Remarks
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Modific-
ations, . . ~~ations
I lstraliaixx xl; Protocol replacing Schedule I
II Benelux x x x x x x Declaration of Netherlands
relating to Indonesia
(GTT/CP/61) .Decision relating
to adjustment of certain
specific duties and charges
(GATT/CP/94 (page 7) and
Corr.l.
I<R>l1/R>< <R>l</R>>/x x xII Braxxzil x x
Burma x
V Caxnada x x x x x Application of items negotiated
with Colombia and Uruguay at
nnecy withheld (GATT/CP.4/6/
Add./Corr.l
<R>2</R>VI Ceylon x x x x x Protocol replacing Schedule VI
See also footnote
VII C<R>h</R>ile xx xl x x x
_ _ _ _ _....................... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
IX Cuba
I
X
x
x
Application of Agreement with-
h.I fm all Annecy and Torauuy
accedig governments except
Haiti under ticle kXx Gi';T
T, 3 . mitTT//111.,
I I - it- ions
X Cc xx x xt
X Czecho- x x . x Item 12, negotiated with U.Ke
slovakia (for Palestine) withdrawn
G.TCP/23). Items nogoL^ted
with Colombia and Uruay at
nnecy withheld (G1TP /40
Add.16). GATT/CP.6/ 20
Page 4.
~
~~~~~~~~i
Pfrotocols o
Rectifiations 'ocol of:
it2nd 3rd 4oth 5cth. tofi-
Other Changes & Remarks
XI France
x x x
x
x
Article XXVIIIa negsotition .
(GTT./CP,ll9 Adds, 2& 3).
XII Ixnd<R>l</R>ia x x x x A p i i pIcaton of Agreement with-
held from deS. Africa unr
ArGAticle 2XXXV (TT/CP./4)
X N.Zeal<R>l</R>and, xx x .
XIV Norway x x x x x x
X~ -
XV Pakistan xxx x x x x Appl-ication of Schedule with.
held from S. Africa under
rticle XXV (G;T/CP.2/4)
XVI S.Rhodesia x x
~ ~ I . a
VM S.frica
X X X', IX
8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
x x
Application of Agreemet to
Iti:.nf Schadiil tPakistan
i not required as result of
action by those two countries
unx 4.n.ceXxVx
XIX U.K. x x x x jStatus o Section B (Newfound-
and) (G&T/CP/32, page 30).
Status of Section E (Palestine)
(GTT/CP/32,'age 25).
x x es.
x x x
x x x
Waiver on item 771 (potatoes)
for year ending 15 Sept1951
(GATT/CP/61, p.10) .
Withdrawal of certain concessio
negotiated with China (GATT/CP
Application of item negotiated
at Annecy with Uruguay withheld
(GTTCP/40/Add o6& Corr ol)
Application of Agreement with-
held from Philippines under Art.
XXV (GTT/CP/1o) .
Withdrawal of part item 1526(a)
under Art.XIX (GATT/CP/83)Modif.
of item 1530(c) (GATT/CP/122/Add.1)
- U0.0000-JIMM. GATT/CP .6/ 20
Page 5
Schedule Protocols of lst Pro-
Rectifications tocol of Other Changes & Remarks
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Modific-
ations
XXI Indonesia x x x<R>l</R> x xx
XXII Denmark xx<R>l</R> x Modification of item ex 8
(GATT/CP/51).
Application of Agreement to
Cuba is not required as result
of action by Cuba under
Art. XXXV.
XXIII Dom. Rep. xx<R>l</R> x x Application of Agreement to
Cuba is not required as
result of action by Cuba
under Art. XXXV.
XXIV Finland x x x x Application of Agreement to
Cuba is not required as
result of action by Cuba
under Art.XXXV.
XXV Greece x x x x Items negotiated with Syria-
Lebanon at Annecy withheld
(GATT/CP/40/Add .9).
Application of Agreement to
Cuba is not required as
result of action by Cuba
under Art.XXXV.
XXVI Haiti
x x<R>l</R>
XXVII Italy x x<R>l</R> x x Modification of item 466,(a),
(1). (GATT/CP/46) and Add.1)
Application of Agreement to
Cuba is not required as
result of action by Cuba
under Art.XXXV.
XXVIII
Liberia
Application of Agreement to
Cuba is not required as
result of action by Cuba
under Art.XXXV. GATT/CP.6/ 20
Page 6.
A
cations Re l &
I !4d 5th Mo3r
XXIX Nicaragua
x
x
I l
tocol of Other Changes & Remarks
5tdh icMoif-
ations
Application of Agreement to Cuba
i not .equiresd a.result of'
action by Cuba under. Art.XXXV
X Sweden x x x x jAplication of item ex 63
negotiated Annectat with
Uruguay withheld A(GTT/CP/40/
Add 4/,.1
Application of Agrmeeent to Cuba
is not required as result of
action by Cuba under Art.XXXV.
XXXI uUrguay <R>l</R> <R>l</R>xx x x Application of Agreement to Cuba
wilnl ot be reiqeurd as result
fation by Cuba under Art.XXXV,.
XXXII Austria. x<R>I</R> Application of Agreement to Cuba
will not be required as result of
action by Cuba under Art.XXXV.
XXXIII Germany Application of Agreement to Cuba
will not be required as result of
action by Cuba under Art.XXXV.
XXXIV Korea x<R>l</R> Application of Agreement to Cuba
will not be required as result of
action by Cuba under Art.XXXV.
XXXV Peru x<R>I</R> Application of Agreement to Cuba
will not be required as result of
action by Cuba under Art.XXXV.
XXXVI Phili x <R>l</R> Application of Agreement to Cuba
ppines & the United States will not be
required as result of action by
these two governments under
Art.XXXV.
XXXVII Turkey x<R>l</R> Application of Agreement to Cuba
will not be required as result
of action by Cuba under Art.XXXV. GATT/CP/6/ 20
Page 7
Footnotes
1 Not in force
2 These schedules can be found in the Protocols replacing Schedules
I and VI, respectively.
3 The following concessions were granted by Ceylon in compensation
for the effect of measures of control, which might be applied
under a new law.
Present Rates Concession
MFN Prefer MFN Prefer.
Ex 312 Agricultural Machinery 22% 12% 15% 5%
Ex 325 Non-domestic
refrigerators 45% 40% 27+% 22+%
Under the terms of agreement reached in the negotiations between
Ceylon and the interested parties under Article XVIII, these con-
cessions may be implemented after any of several specified products
are brought under regulation within the meaning of the Industrial
Products Act of Ceylon. They may not be operative beyond the period
of the release granted under Article XVIII i.e. up to March 30, 1955.
(Cf GATT/CP.4/12 and 32). GATT/CP.6/ 20
Page 8.
re d 0c U&lo
The assured life of the following schedules has been extended to
January 1, 19o54, by signature of the Declaration f Continued
Alication of SchodIlet
Sckdule I
Schedule II
Schedule V
Schedule V
Schedule VI
Schedule IX
Schedule X
Schdu - XI
Schedule XII
Schedule XI
Schc-LlXV
Schedule XVI
Schedule XIII
Schedule XIX
Schedule XX
Schedule XXII
Schedule XIV
Schedule XXVIII
Schedue XXX
Australia
Belgium - Luxmbourg - Netherlands
Canada
Ceylon
Chile
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
'anco
India
New Zealand
Greece
Southern Rhodesia
South Africa
United Kingdom
United States
Dominican Republic
Finland
Libria
Sweden
Thee following govrnments have given an undertaking that they will
observe, on a reciprocal basonis, the provisris of the Declaation not
to invke ti provisions of para. 1 of Article XXVIII to effect changes
in theAir Geneva or nnecy Schedules pendinog a decision n the matter
by their Parliaments.
Denark (Schedule XXII)
Tonesia (Schedule XXI)
Ital (Schedule XXVII)
Norway (SIchedule XV)
Pakistan (Schedule XV)
There remain the following schedules for whmmiche no csoitmnt ha
bddeen assue:
Schree III
checle IV
Sce XXVIhr x
Scehe.loXXIX
Brazil
Burma
Hct
Nicaragua GATT/CP/6/20
Page 9.
Note II.
Action by Contracting parties in withholding and withdrawing concessions
The following table sets out the position of contracting parties which have
notified the withholding or withdrawal of items in their Geneva or Annecy
schedules which were negotiated with countries which have since withdrawn
from the Agreement or are not applying their schedules. Also listed are
the other contracting parties who negotiated with such countries but have
given no notice of withholding or withdrawing items.
Countries with Action by Contracting Contracting Parties which
which negotia- Parties under Article carried out negotiations
tions were XXVII or Annecy Pro- but have given no notifi-
carried out tocol of Accession cation of withdrawals or
Schedule withholdings
III Brazil Dominican Italy
Republic Sweden
Finland Uruguay
VIII China U.S. - Article XXVII -Withdrawal Geneva Annecy
of 67 out of about 90 items or Australia Czecho. Denmark
part-items negotiated with China Benelux France Finland
and consequential changes in the Brazil India Italy
preferential rates (GATT/CP/115). Burma N.Z. Sweden
S. Africa - Withdrawal of most- Canada Norway Uruguay
favoured-nation treatment but no Ceylon U.K.
change to Schedule as items all Cuba
negotiated with at least/other as
well as China (GATT/CP/54/Add.1)
XVII Syria- Greece - withholding of 3 items Geneva Annecy
Lebanon under paragraph 4 of Annecy Australia Czecho, Italy
Protocol Benelux France
Canada U.K.
Chile U.S.
XIX United Withdrawal of one item by See footnote*
Kingdom Czechoslovakia under Article
Section: E XXVII
Palestine
XXXI Uruguay Withholding under paragraph 4 At Annecy
of Annecy Protocol Benelux France
Canada - 6 items Brazil ** Italy
Chile N.Zealand
Czechoslovakia - 4 items China Norway
U.S. - 8 items Denmark U.Kingdom
Colombia Withholding under paragraph 4 At Annecy
(No schedule) of Annecy Protocol Brazil ** (France, U.K. &
Canada - 4 items Chile Italy also nego-
Czechoslovakia - 4 items India tiated with
Sweden - 1 item Norway Colombia but did
Uruguay not include the
results in their
schedules)
* France advised intention not to withdraw any concessions negotiated with
Palestine (GATT/CP.3/SR.11).
* Schedule not applied. |
GATT Library | yc021kf8632 | Subsidies : Notificastions required by Article XVI | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 14, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/02/1951 | official documents | GATT/GP/92/ADD.1 and GATT/CP/92+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yc021kf8632 | yc021kf8632_90300342.xml | GATT_140 | 158 | 960 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTEDE
LL ITED B
GATT/GP/92/ADD. 1
14 February 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
Referring to paragraph 2 of GATT/CP/92, the Greek Delegation at Torquay
has advised that the failure of the Government of Greece to submit a notification
relating to subsidies, of the type defined. in Article XVI, is to be interpreted
as indicating that no such subsidy is granted or maintained by the Greek
Government.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
S U B V E N T I O N S
Notifications requises en vertu de l'article XVI
Se referant au paragrphe 2 du document GATT/CP/92 la Delegation de la
Grece a Torquay a fait savoir que le defaut de notification du Gouvernement
grec relativement aux subventions du type defini a l'article XVI doit etre
interprete ccme indiquant qu'aucune subventirv. iaest accordee ou mainternue
par son Gouvernement. |
GATT Library | kw866zr3347 | Subsidies : Notifications required by Article XVI | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 14, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/02/1951 | official documents | GATT/GP/92/ADD.1 and GATT/CP/92+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kw866zr3347 | kw866zr3347_90300344.xml | GATT_140 | 162 | 994 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LAITED B
GATT/GP/92/ADD. 1
14 February 1951
BILLFGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
Notifications required by Article XVI
Referring to paragraph 2 of GATT/CP/92, the Greek Delegation at Torquay
has advised that the failure of the Government of Greece to submit a notification
relating to subsidies, of the type defined in Article XVI, is to be interpreted
as indicating that no such subsidy is granted or maintained by the Greek
Government.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
S U B V E N T I N O S
Notifiction- reguises en vertu de l'article XVI
Se referant au paragrphe 2 du document GATT/CP/92, la Delegation de la
Grece a Torquay a fait savor que le defaut de notification du Gouvernement
grec relativement aux subventions du type defini a l'article XVI doit etre
interprete comme indiquant qu'aucune subvention n'est accordee ou maintenue
par son Gouvernement. |
GATT Library | jx792tt6365 | Subsidies : Notifications required by Article XVI | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, January 11, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/01/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/ 92 and GATT/CP/92+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jx792tt6365 | jx792tt6365_90300341.xml | GATT_140 | 365 | 2,412 | ACTION
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESRICTEDD
LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP/ 92'
11January1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Notificastions required by Article XVI
1.* Pursuant to the Decision of 2 March 1950, eleven contracting parties sub-
mitted notifications of subsidies of the type defined in Article XVI of the
General Agreement. At their Fifth Session, the Contracting Parties decided
that the statements submitted should be reissued in a single document, but in
order that the compilation my be as complete as possible it was agreed to
afford contracting parties an opportunity to bring their statements up to
date or to submit supplementary statements if they should so desire.
April 15, 1951 is the closing date for the submission of supplementary
information.
2. It was noted at the Fifth Sossion that the governments of Burma, Greece,
Liberia, Nicaragua and syria had not informed the Contracting Parties, in
response to the Decision of 2 March 1950, whether or not they grant or
maintain subsidies of the type defined in Article XVI. The Contracting
Parties decided to enquire whether the absence of notification is to be inter-
preted as indicating that no such subsidies are granted or maintained, and
accordingly it would be appreciated if these governments would communicate
with the Executive Secretary for the information of the Contracting Parties.
3. The representative of Chile at the Fifth Session indicated that his
government does not maintain subsidies under Article XVI (GATT/CP.5/SR.20)
and accordingly Chile should be included in the list of countries (GATT/CP.5/26
and Add.l) which have notified that they do not grant or maintain subsidies.
4. The acceding governments, negotiating at Torquay with a view to accession
to the General Agreement, are not obliged, until they become contracting
parties, to give notification of the subsidies which they grant or maintain
in terms of Article XVI. On the other hand, it is hoped that these govern-
ments will become contracting parties during 1951 -.nd it would add to the
completeness of the document if their countries wore included in it.
Consequently some or all of these governments my wish to submit statements.
If so the notifications should reach the Executive Secretary by April 15,
1951.
~~~~ _ J.- ,;* |
GATT Library | ww355hg4255 | Subventions : Notifications requises en vertu de l'article XVI | Accord General sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce, January 12, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 12/01/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/92 and GATT/CP/92+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ww355hg4255 | ww355hg4255_90300343.xml | GATT_140 | 407 | 2,738 | ACTION
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B GATT/CP/92
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS 12 janvier 1951
DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
PART IBS CONTRACTANTES
SUBVENTIONS
Notifications requises en vertu de l'aricle.XVI
1. En application de la Decision du 2-.mars 1950, onze parties contractantes
ant soumis des notifications concernant les subventions du type defini a l'article
XVI de l'Accord general. Au cours de leur cinquieme session, lea Parties Con-
tractantes ont decide qua les exposes soumis par ces pays seraient reunis en un
document unique; toutefois, pour que ce document soit aussi complete que possible,
il a ete entendu que l'on accorderait aux parties contractantes la possibilite
de mettre leurs exposes a jour ou de presenter des exposes supplementaires au
cas ou elles le desireraient..
Le 15 avril 1951 eat la date limited pour l'envoi des renseignements supple-
mentaires.
2. On a note, au cours de la cinquieme session, que lea gouvernements de la
Birwanie, de la Grece, du Liberia, du Nicaraga et de la Syrie n'avaient pas
fait savoir aux Parties Contractantes, conformement a la Decision du 2 mars 1950,
a'ils accoratent ou maintenaient des subventions du type defini a l'article XVI.
Les Parties Contraotantes ont decide de se renseigner pour savoir si le defaut
de notification doit etre interprete cqmme indiquant qu'aucune subvention n'est
accorded ou maintenue par ces Gouvernement3; en consequence, il strait utile
que les gouvernements en question veuillen', bien se mettre en rapport avec le
Secretaire executif qui communiquera auxparties contractantes les renseignements
qui lui parviendront.
3 Le representant du Chili a la cinquieme session a signale que son gouver-
nement ne maintenait pas de subventions au titre de l'article XVI. (GATT/CP.5/
SR.20), et le Chili devrait done figure sur la listed des pays (GATT/CP.5/26 &
Add.1) qui ont notifie qu'ils n'accordaient ni ne maintenaient de subventions.
4. Les gouvernements adherents qui negecient a Torquay en vue de leur adhesion
a l'Accord general ne sont pas tenus, tant qu'ils ne deviennent pas parties
contractantes, de notifier lea subventions qu'ils accordent ou maintiennent
aux termes de l'article XVI. Cependant, on espere que ces gouvernements devien-
dront parties contractantes au cours de l'annee 1951 et le document dont il eat
question ci-dessus serait plus complet si l'on pouvait y fairs mention de ces
pays. II se pout, en consequence, que tous ces gouvernements ou certain d'entre
eux detirent presenter des exposes. Dans ce cas, lea notifications devraient
parvenir au Secretaire executif avant le 15 avril 1951.
.II |
GATT Library | jj103qj9531 | Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Wednesday, 3 October 1951, at 10,30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 9, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.18 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jj103qj9531 | jj103qj9531_90270215.xml | GATT_140 | 3,116 | 19,522 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR. 18
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 9 October 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Wednesday, 3 October 1951, at 10,30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. John MELANDER (Norway)
Subject discussed: Attendance of Japanese observer.
Request by the government of Japan to be represented by an observer (GATT/CP.6/
8/Add. 1)
The CHAIRMAN referred to the telegram that had been received from the
Japanese government and to the note suggesting that the invitation should be
considered under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure.
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) thought that altough. a decision on this
matter might be thought a purely procedural one, there were wider implications
which should be considered. The attendance of an observer did not of course
commit the Contracting Parties nor the country represented by the observer on
the question of its possible future accession. Nevertheless if the Contracting
parties agreed to invite a country to send an observer there must be a tendency
to presume that, should that country apply to accede to the Agreement, the
parties to the Agreement would have no difficulty in principle in agreeing.
If there were any case where this presumption was not well founded, an
invitation to send an observer might lead to considerable embarrassment both
for the Contracting Parties and for the non-member country concerned. In
such circumstances an invitation, and particularly an invitation given
precipitately, would give a false impression, and increase the inherent
difficulties of the situation. He therefore felt that the Contracting Parties
should give themselves time to consider such an invitation very seriously.
.The question of Japanese accession to the General Agreement would cause
considerable difficulties to a number of governments. The United Kingdom
had recently made a carefully considered statement defining their attitude on
the question of most-favoured-nation treatment for Japanese goods which could
be broadly summed up as follows: firstly, the United Kingdom recognized the
need for Japan to develop her export trade in order to pay for necessary
imports and to maintain a reasonable standard of living; secondly, the
United Kingdom government at present gave de facto most-favoured-nation
treatment to Japan and hoped to be able to continue to do so; but; finally, GATT/CP.6/SR.18
Page 2
in view of the special problems which Japanese, trade had presented in the
past and might again in the future, the United Kingdom was not prepared to
commit itself to continue to extend mostfavoured-nation treatment at least
until the future course of Japanese economy and commercial policy had become
clearer. Naturally such a view carried implications as to the attitude of
his government towards any suggestion that might be made that Japan should
accede to the Agreement.
Mr. Leckie wished to make it quite clear that he was not proposing that
the Contracting Parties reject the Japanese request. There was, however,
real need to give governments time to consider this complicated question
fully and he proposed postponing any decision on the matter until the
beginning of the Seventh Session. The present Session was so far advanced
and the notice of the matter so short that he thought this could be done
with no discourtesy to the Japanese government.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) agreed with the views of the United Kingdom
delegate. An invitation to send an observer might be a small matter but in
this case there were wider implications and the Contracting Parties should
be allowed more time to consider the matter. He therefore supported the
proposal to defor a decision until the opening of the Seventh Session, while
making it perfectly clear that this involved no decision on the substance
of the matter and no intended discourtesy to Japan.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) was not convinced by the considerations put
forward by the United Kingdom and Australian delegates. This was a purely
procedural matter. In the past countries had asked to send observers and
there was no case whore such a request was refused or discussed at any
length. To single out one country would inveitably then be discourteous.
Even if the influence of an observer carried any implication as to
accession, he was no reason why contracting parties should be afraid of this.
In the past, some countries who sent observees had joined the Contracting
Parties and some had not, and in no case had the contracting parties either
urged or stood in their way. The stage of advancement of the session was a
matter for the country sending an observer to take into account and not for
the Contracting Parties. None of the reasons advanced, in fact, seemed to
him valid ones to prevent the Contracting Parties from deciding now on this
question. The question of the future commercial policy of Japan had been
raised. He pointed out that most governments represented in the Contracting
Parties had recently entered into a peace treaty with Japan which must meant
that they had no objection to Japan taking its place in the political field.
What possible objection when could there be to Japan taking its place in the
economic field, and under the General Agreement there would be greater
assurance regarding the future course of the economic policies of Japan. In
his view the Agreement had had a salutary influence en the commercial policies
of most contracting parties and pressure had been brought to bear by the
Contracting Parties from time to time on several governments. It would be an
excellentt idea to have as many countries contracting parties to the Agreement
as possible. Ho strongly urged the Contracting Parties not to delay in
agreeing to the Japanese requests.
M. BONHOMME (Haiti) supported thes view of the delegate of India and fully
agreed with his reasons. It would be discourteous not to accede to the GATT/CP. 6/SR.18
Page 3
request of Japan. As to the implications of such an invitation, if the
Agreement was universal in character then contracting parties should make
an effort to include all countries therein, and if contracting parties
considered the Agreement affective against violations of the code of
commercial ethics and thought that Japan might one day violate this code,
they had an interest in Japan's trade being regulated by the provisions of
the Agreement.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) agreed with the delegate of India. He did
not see how it was possible to defer a decision on this matter to the
Seventh Session without in fact rejecting the request to participate in
the Sixth Session. He was also concerned at the precedent that might be
established if the Contracting Parties departed from the tradition of
treating the question of observers as a purely procedural one. The United
Kingdom delegate had said that the attendance of an observer carried no
commitment on the question of accession. Mr. Leddy considered that the
attendance of an observer carried no implications whatsoever. To deny a
Country the right to send an observer, however, would carry the distinct
implication that any future request to accede to the Agreement would be
rejected.
It was true that certain countries were not at the present time in a
position to negotiate with Japan. The question of negotiation with
Japan was not, however, before the Contracting Parties, and if a discussion
on this questions were to be avoided at the present time, Japan's request
to send an observer must be granted. The invitation could perhaps make it
clear that no commitment as to accession me implied.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) said that he had received no instructions from
his government.
Mr. TOWNLEY (Southern Rhodesia) supported the United Kingdom proposal
and explained that Southern Rhodesia also extended de facto most-favoured-
nation treatment to Japan.
Mr. PERRA (Ceylon) agred unreservedly with the delegates of India and
Haiti that an invitation should be issued immediately.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) stated that his country had maintained friendly
relations with Japan and he had no objection to their being invited
immediately to send an observer to the Session. However, he understood
perfectly the difficulties of the countries who opposed this course, and
agreed that it would not be unreasonable to point out to the Japanese
Government that it was rather, late in the Session to send an observer: The
Indian delegate had argued that if countries feared a repetition of Japanese
pre-war commercial practices the General Agreement offered the possibility of
control. M. Cassiers considered the Agreement particularly weak precisely
in the provisions concerning dumping, from which practice countries had mainly
suffered before the war., If the cost of production and prices in Japan
continued to be infinitely lower than elsewhere, they could still dump their
products in other countries and those countries would have absolutely no
recourse against them under the General Agreement. He therefore repeated
that he had no objection to inviting Japan to be represented at this Session GATT/CP.6/SR. 18
Page 4
but that it would not be unreasonable to postpone a decision on this matter.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) said that his country had made a bilateral agree-
ment with Japan as early as it was possible to enter into commercial
relations with that country; the agreement was both large and successful.
He favoured an invitation being sent to Japan immediately. Without
necessarily subscribing to the view that the General Agreement was a
paricularly good instrument - that was a matter which his Goverment would
have to weigh in the light of experience - he did not think that any country
should be denied the possibility of considering whether they wished to
accede thereto. He asked the United Kingdom delegate to reconsider his
position, particularly in view of the fact that the matter of sending
observers had always hitherto been treated as a completely procedural one.
It would be more graceful if the invitation to Japan could be given with
the consent of all the contracting parties.
M. LECUYER (France) had no objection to the presence of a Japanese
observer and thought that this could in no way pre-judge the question of the
application by any country of most-favoured-nation treatment of Japan. He
understood the difficulties of the countries who were opposed to their
attendance, and unless there were general consent by the Contracting Parties
to the attendance of a Japanese observer, he would prefer the question to be
deferred to the next session.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) though that Japan should be invited to send an
observer to this session. This question should be considered purely on
procedural grounds. Reasons of courtesy, the tradition that n country had
ever been refused the right to send an observer, and the importance of the
trade of Japan all made it particularly difficult to refuse the Japanese
request. He thought that the United Kingdom delegate exaggerated the
implications of such an invitation. If Japan wished to accede to the
Agreement, there would first be negotiations with all the
contracting parties followed by a decision of the Contracting Parties on
the accession of Japan which would presumably involve approval not only of
the results of the negotiations, but a judgment on the commercial policy of
that country. It would, in any case, be useful to have Japan's commercial
policy subject to the General Agreement. He wished also to mention that
Italy accorded de facto most-favoured nation treatment to Japan.
Mr. Di Nola agreed with the French representative that any decision to
invite Japan should be with the general consent of the Contracting Parties
and if there were strong opposition would think it perhaps wiser to post-
pone a decision until the next Session.
Mr TAUBER (Czeohoslovakia) considered this a question of great
importance and substance. He opposed the admission of a Japanese observer
although his Government was ready to give Japan the opportunity to develop
its political and economic independence and its commerce. He referred to
the arguments advanced by the Indian delegate, in which he saw a certain
inconsistency. India had refused to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty
with Japan, presumably for both political and economic reasons. The economic
reasons were surely that the so-called treaty as drafted gave no protection
against Japanese pre-war commercial practices and contained clauses which GATT/CP.6/SR.18
Page 5
would result in the continuance of privileges gained during the occupation by
certain foreign monopolies. As to the argument that as a contracting party
Japan would be subject to the control of the Agreements it seemed to him
illogical to advocate the accession of a country when contracting parties
already assumed that this country would violate the Agreement.
Mr. Tauber referred to the question of procedures The Resolution of
the Economic and Social Council of 1947 stated that observers of the Allied
Control Authorities in Japan should be invited to the Havana Conference. He
could not agree with the conclusion in the Secretariat paper that the
Japanese Government was thereby represented. Furthermore, the Final Note to
Annex I of the Agreement expressly stated that the applicability of the
Agreement to areas under military occupation was not dealt with but reserved
for later study. The San Francisco Treaty provided for the maintenance of
foreign troops on Japanese territory, and one must conclude that Japan
continued under military occupation and should be treated according to the
rules of the Agreement for areas under military occupation and Article 71
of the Havana Charter.
To conclude, neither from the point of view of substance nor of pro-
cedure could he see any reason to accord Japan the right to send an observer.
Mr.SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) said that he had not expected this long
debate on what seemed a purely procedural matter. He thought that the
request should be accorded now as he saw no possibility of coming to any
but an affirmative decision at the Seventh Session. As to possible
implications regarding accession, the Japanese Government would certainly
be entitled to say that the request was to send an observer and should be
considered quite simply as that.
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) said he had no feelings one way or the other
on the matter, but it did seen that to refuse to agree to Japan's request
would be a gratuitous affront to a government with whom most of the
contracting parties had just concluded a Peace Treaty. The presence of an
observer was purely a formal matter and could have no implications as to
any eventual negotiations with Japan.
Mr. BORRSEN (Norway) agreed with the Danish representative and was in
favour of inviting Japan to send an observer.
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) saw no reason to depart from the tradition of
agreeing to the attendance of observers on procedural grounds and favoured
inviting Japan.
Mr. HAGEMANN (Germany) supported inviting Japan to this Session.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) supported inviting Japan, and thought it would
be incorrect to defer a decision on this matter even if there were not
general consent to the invitation.
Mr. MELLO (Brazil), Mr. SCHNAKE (Chile) and Mr. PEDRO VILLALON
(Dominican Republic) supported the extending of an invitation to Japan to
send an observer to this Session. GATT/CP. 6/SR. 18
Page 6
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) thought there had been some misunderstanding
of his proposal. He only asked that the request by Japan should lie longer
on the table in order that governments could give it full consideration and
deal with the very real difficulties that this request raised for some of
then, in the hope that at the Seventh Session a unanimous decision to invite
Japan to send an observer could immediately be reached. He thought it would
be unfortunate if an invitation were issued by the contracting parties when
they were seriously divided on the question and the debate had shown
serious division. He assured the Contracting Parties that the difficulties
of his Government were genuine ones and they would like further tine to deal
with them. However if it were the feeling of the majority that an invi-
tation should be, issued for this Session, he would not press the matter to
a vote. In those circumstances he would ask that the position of his
Government be placed clearly on record and that he should be free to state
publicly that he had suggested deferring the matter until the Seventh
Session and had agreed not to carry the matter to a vote in the interests
of harmony. In fairness to Japan it seemed that the Executive Secretary
should advise the Japanese Government that the invitation he was extending
on behalf of the Contracting Parties carried no implications with regard
to the possible future accession of Japan.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) thanked the United Kingdom delegate for his accom-
nodating attitude and wondered if he could not also withdraw the suggestion
that Japan be informed in the invitation that the invitation had no bearing
on its possible future accession. As the Danish delegate had pointed out,
the Japanese Goverment had not mentioned accession and to raise the matter
in the invitation of the Contracting Parties would be gratuitous discourtesy,
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) also thanked the United Kingdom delegate. He
agreed with the Indian delegate that the type of invitation suggested by the
United Kingdom delegate would be unfortunate, but since the latter's
difficulties were undoubtedly genuine, he wondered whether they could not be
net by coming to some formal and general declaration in the records that
requests to send an observer to meetings of the Contracting Parties would be
dealt with as procedural matters and that invitations to send observers could
in no way effect the question of possible future accession.
The CHAIRMAN explained that if a Japanese observer attended the meeting
he would have access to the summary record and it seemed unnecessary to
refer specially to the matter.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) thanked the United Kingdom delegate for his
concession to the views of other contracting parties and said that he under-
stood that the invitation would be sent to Japan along with a copy of the
summary record.
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) said that this suggestion was acceptable
to him and that he would not insist that the invitation specifically
referred to accession. He wished it to be clear however that it was the view
of the Contracting Parties that the issue of an invitation did not commit
the Contracting Parties on the question of accession. GATT/CP.6/SR.38
Page 7
The CHAIRMAN said that was certainly the case.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) wished it to be clear that he still
opposed the extension of an invitation to Japan.
The CHAIRMAN said that, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there
was general agreement that an invitation, together with the summary record
of the meetings should be sent to Japan to be represented by an observer.
The meeting adjourned at 1.20 p.m. |
GATT Library | kd310gs3421 | Summary Record of the Eighth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, January 3, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/01/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP. 5/SR. 8/Corr. 1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kd310gs3421 | kd310gs3421_90270128.xml | GATT_140 | 141 | 957 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 8/Corr. 1
3 January 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Corrigendum u 1
The list of subjecstus dicssed shoulde bec rplaed by the following:
I*y'ment to the last paragraph of PartIIi 1:'lArtcle XX to
correspond with Article4 5 oftTheHa avna Cahretr (continued).
.2 Standard Practices for teh amdinitsration of ipmort licences
and exchange control.
OMPTE RENLU DE LA HFIJIMET SEANCED
Corrgeindmu
èroommaíte,dothO êere remplacé6par 'l. s-iv-nt:1
1. Amendement du dernier praagrahpe de la Partie II del'a rticle
XX de l'Accord égénral ayant pour but demetrtre ce texte en
harmonie avec l'article 45 de laCh arte de la Havane. (suite).
2. èRgles pratiquesà adoptre pour le érgime des licences d'impor-
tation et du contôrle esd hcnges.m |
GATT Library | qg502qy1851 | Summary Record of the Eighth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.8/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qg502qy1851 | qg502qy1851_90270190.xml | GATT_140 | 321 | 2,162 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP6/SR.8/Corr .1
29 September 1951
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 2
Mr. Thorp's (United States) statement should read as follows:-
"Mr. THORP (United States) said that a do facts solution
currently satisfactory to both the parties had been found, and
hence he supported the suggestion of the Cuban delegate."
Mr. Sahlin"s (Sweden) statement should read as follows:-
"Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) said that his delegation welcomed the proposal
and supported the suggestion to refer the question to a working party.
He thought that while negotiations should be within the framework of the
Agreement, the idea to simplify the procedure on the lines now suggested
was a good one."
The third and fourth sentences of Mr. Caldor's (United Kingdom) statement
should read as follows:-
" So far as the United Kingdom was concerned the suggested procedure would
involve a particular difficulty as regards the preferences accorded by
the Commonwealth countries to one another unless all the Commonwealth
countries wore participating in the negotiations."
Page 4
In the penultimate speech, delete "Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia)" and
substitute "'Mr . FLETCHER (Australia)".
Mr. Khan's (Pakistan) statement should read as follows:-
"Mr. KHAN (Pakistan) said that steps were being taken by the
Government of Pakistan and it was hoped that Pakistan would sign before
the closing date". GATT/CP.6/SR. 8/Corr .1.
Page 2
Add to Mr. Mollo's (Brazil) first statement on this page the following
sentente :-
"He requested that an extension of tine to 31 December 1951 be granted
for Brazil to give notification of its intention to put into effect its
Annecy Schedule".
The seventh and eighth paragraphs should read:-
"It was agreed to grant an extension to 31 December 1951 for
Brazil to give notification undor paragraph 3 of the Annocy Protocol.
"The Chairman's suggestion that all those matters be reviewed before
the close of the Session was approved" |
GATT Library | gs142mp4340 | Summary Record of the Eighth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Friday, 21 September 1951 at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 24, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 24/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.8 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gs142mp4340 | gs142mp4340_90270189.xml | GATT_140 | 2,572 | 16,815 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE :
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP .6/SR.8
24 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONATRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Friday, 21 September 1951 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. JohaM MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed:
1. Appointment of a Working Party on the
Administration of the Agreement.
2. Statement by Cuba on the Negotiations with
the United States under Article XXVIII.
3. Appointment of a Working Party on Schedules.
4. Arrangements for Tariff Negotiations.
5. Torquay Protocol.
6. Status of Protocols and Schedules.
7. Brazilian internal Taxes.
At the opening of the meeting the CHAIRMAN announced that Austria had
signed the Torquay Protocol on19 September 1951 and would therefore become
a contracting party with effect from 19 October 1951.
1. Appointment of a Woring tty on the Adminstra
The CHAIRMAN said that the question of the continuing administration
Af the Agreement invooved three points: financial arrangements in
connection with the administration; establishment of a standing committee;
and the site. The third question had not been discussed as it depended
upon the outcome of the other two. He suggested that thc question of the
site should be postponed until the Contracting Parties had further examined
the first two points and that the question of fhnance should not be
referred to this WorkingePaety at present but this could be done if found
desirable after the Contracting Parties hCd discussed the question again.
This was agreed.
The Chairman suggested the following terms of reference and membership
for the Working Party:
"To consider problems connected with the administration of the
General Agreement in the light of the discussion in the plenary
sessions of the Contracting Partios on item 6 of the aeenda and to
submit appropriate recommendations for consideration by the
Contracting Parties." GATT/CP.6/SR.8
Page 2
Membership:
Chairman: Mr. Max Suetens (in a personal capacity)
Australia Italy
Canada Netherlands
Chile Norway
Cuba Pakistan
France South Africa
Germany United Kingdom
India United States.
This was approved.
2. Statement by Cuba on the Negotiations with theUnited States under
Article XXVIII (GATT/CP.6/14/Add.1)
Mr. VARGA GOMEZ (Cuba) referred to the statement in GATT/CP.6/14/Add.1,
by the delegations of Cuba and the United States, and added that the discussions
were continued after the close of the Torquay Conference but had not been com-
pleted by 1 July 1951. He hoped, however, that the outstanding questions would
be settled satisfactorily soon, and ho suggested that the Contracting Parties
might authorise extension of the time-limit from 1 July 1951 to the opening date
of the Seventh Session of the Contracting Parties.
Mr. THORP (United States)said that a de facts solution satisfactory to
both the parties had boon found, but time was required for putting it in final
form, and hence he supported the suggestion of the Cuban delegate.
It was agreed to extend the time limit for the inclusion of these
negotiations to the opening date of the Seventh Session.
3 . Appointment of a Working Party on Schedules
The CHAIRMAN stated that items 10, 13, 24, 15 and 29 on the agenda were of
a technical nature and it had boon agreed to refer them to a working party
without further discussions He proposed the appointment of a working party
with the following terms of reference and membership:
"To prepare a protocol or protocols to give effect to the modifications
and rectifications of the schedules required by, item 10, 13, 14 and 29
of the agenda and to prepare a text consolidating the Geneva, Annexy and
Torquay schedules for publication".
Membership:
Chairman: Mr. F. Done (France)
Canada Netherlands
Denmark South Africa
France United Kingdom
United States
This was agreed GATT/CP.6/SR. 8
Page 3
4. Arangements for Tariff Negotiations (GATT/CP.6/2)
Mr. THORP (United States) said that his Government attached great
importance to the proposals contained in document GATT/CP.6/2. The
memorandum suggested a set of procedures for negotiations in the interval
between two tariff conferences. The proposals embraced two things:
(1) a means of arranging negotiations for countries seeking to
accede is the Agreement without waiting for a general
conference, and
(2) a procedure to enable contracting parties to undertake
further negotiations among themselves.
He would like to hear the views of delegations on the principles involved
and thereafter he would suggest that the question be referred to a working
party for examination of details.
Mr. TUOMINEN (Finland) supported the proposals of the United States.
M. PFLIMLIN (France) said that his delegation supported the proposal
without reservation. The French Government had always favoured muti-
lateral negotiations but the procedure was undoubtedly cumbersome and
involved delay. The United States plan was an effort to combine the
mutilateral method with simplicity and speed.
Mr DHARMA VIRA (India) supported the proposals. Tariff negotiations
by their highly technical nature required the prolonged attendance of
experts; these long absences could be avoided if the United States proposal
was adopted.
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) endorsed the proposal to refer the question to a
working party. He thought that while negotiations should be within the
framework of the Agreement, the idea to simplify the procedure was a good
one.
Mr. COPPOLA D'ANNA (Italy) supported the proposal. It would be useful
to facilitate the accession of new countries and to enable existing
contracting parties to hold further negotiations.
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) welcomed the proposal in principle. There
were certain difficulties to which he wished, however, to draw attention,
It was possible that in such negotiations between one or more contracting
parties with new countries, other contracting parties would be unable to
participate and the total of concessions obtained would be considerably
smaller than had the negotiations been conducted on a full scale. So far
as the United Kingdom was concerned the procedure involved particular
problems in the matter of preferences enjoyed by the Commonwealth.
Negotiations could not be held unless all Commonwealth countries participated.
Also much would depend on the particular country involved in the negotiations.
A procedure which might be satisfactory in the case of countries whose
external trade was small, or limited to a few products, would probably not GATT/CP.6/SR.8
Page 4
be appropriate in the case of a country whose trade was of major importance.
The case of Japan was one which would have to be considered as a separate
issue, and in no circumstances would the United Kingdom be able to agree
that the procedure proposed by the United States be applied to them.
The Contracting Parties would have to decide in each case on the new
country with whom it was proposed to negotiate for admission. His
delegation supported the establishment of a working party.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) thought that this proposal was an important
contribution to the work of this Session. It was desirable to make
arrangements for contracting parties to negotiate with countries not
parties to the Agreement. His delegation assumed that no change in
principle with regard to accession would be effected and that the contracting
parties would have an opportunity of saying whether they wished to negotiate
with other governments and whether they should be brought in. He suggested
that the Contracting Parties should not adopt a rigid set of rules but
rather flexible arrangements which could be adapted as required.
Mr. HAGEMAN (Germany) supported the proposal.
Mr. VIRGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) stated that his delegation welcomed any
proposal to improve the present machinery on the understanding that it
would not reduce the multilateral character of negotiations.
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) supported the proposal for consideration by a
working party.
Mr.CASSIERS (Belgium) reported that his delegation was in agreement
with the United States proposal and thought that it came at the right
moment.
M. DUHR (Luxembourg) said that his government had examined the proposal
and fully endorsed it in principle.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) siad that he could not understand the
contention of the United Kingdom delegate that the case of countries like
Japan would have to be separately considered. The plan provided that the
result of negotiations would be laid before the Contracting Parties at a
regular session and a protocol would be drawn up which would require the
approval of two-thirds of the contracting parties. In his opinion,
therefore, there was no need for each case to be considered before
negotiations started; any procedure should be applicable to all acceding
countries.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) shared the views of the United Kingdom
delegation but thought that all details could be discussed in a working
party.
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) referred to the point raised by the
delegate for India in connection with Japan. It was not his intention that
special rules should be named for particular countries, but with reference
to any particular country the contracting parties should have an opportunity
to consider whether an invitation should be issued. GATT/CP.6/SR. 8
Page 5
The CHAIRMAN said that th.e principle of the United States proposal
appeared to be acceptable and that questions of detail could be studied
by a working party. He proposed, the following terns of reference and
membership:
"To consider and report on proposals, including the proposal
submitted by the United States in GATT/CP.6/2, for the conduct
of tariff negotiations, at tines other than during tariff conferences,
along contracting parties or between contracting parties and other
governments which may wish to accede to the General Agreement and
to recommend the means of incorporating. the results of such
negotiations in the Agreement."
Chairman: Mr A. DI NOLA (in personal capacity)
Australia Finland
Belgium France
Brazil Germany
Canada Turkey
Ceylon United Kingdom
Chile United States
5 Torquay Protocol (GATT/CP.6/6 and Add. 1-3)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the last day for signing the Torquay
Protocol was 21 October 1951. Brazil, Denmark, Italy and the United
Kingdom had requested an extension of the tine limit, while among the
acceding governments Korea and the Philippines had also asked for an
extension. If the Contracting Parties were agreable to these extensions,
a formal resolution would be prepared by the Secretariat and submitted
for approval. As for Uruguay, the Chairman explained that the Executive
Secretary had learned from the Uruguayan delegate to the Economic and
Social Council (there being no Uruguayan representative to the Contracting
Parties) that delays in signature both of the Annecy and Torquay Protocols
(for the former of which an extension had already been granted) were
almost inevitable owing to certain constitutional revisions at present in
progress. The Executive Secretary hoped to ascertain the intentions of the
Uruguayan government before the close of the Session.
Mr. SVEINBJOHNSSON (Denmark)said that the Danish Parliament night be
able to decide the question before 21 October, but he could not be certain
and suggested that 31 December 1951 would be acceptable.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) said that his delegation had no hesitation in
accepting the proposal for granting the extension of time requested. His
goverment had not yet signed the Protocol and if for any reason it was not
possible to do so before 21 October he would also have to ask for an
extension. He, therefore, suggested that the question should not be dis-
posed of so that if necessary he could ask for an extension of time later. GATT/CP.6/SR. 8
Page 6
The following extensions were agreed:
Brazil 31 December 1951
Denmark 31 December 1951
United Kingdom 31 December 1951
Italy 28 February 1952
Korea 31 March 1952
Philippines 22 May 1952
6. Status of Protocols and Schedules (GATT/CP.6/20)
The CHAIRMAN referred to the list of countries which had not yet
signed the Torquay Protocol, and enquired whether those countries which
had not asked for an extension of time would sign the Protocol before
21 October, the last date for signature.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) hoped to see Australia's name removed from
the list before the end of the Session.
U SAW OHN TIN (Burma) said that he would ascertain his governments
intentions before the 1st October.
Mr. SCHNAKE (Chile) said that he was in the sane position as the
delegate of Australia.
M. SCUTT (Haiti) said that his government had completed all the
procedures necessary for signature and intended to sign in the very near
future.
Mr. TALPIHERU (Indonesia) said that he had cabled to his government and
hoped to have an answer early during the session.
Mr. PRESS (New Zealand) said that the intention was to sign when the
acceding countries had signed. He added that he had cabled to his
government and hoped to have the required information before the close
of the Session.
There being no representative of Nicaragua present, the CHAIRMAN
said that the Secretariat would inquire by cable as to its intentions.
Mr. KHAN (Pakistan) stated that the Protocol would be signed by his
government before the closing date.
Dr. BOTHA (United of South Africa) said that steps had been taken to
sign tho Protocol before the 21 at October.
The CHAIRMAN considered the position of Uruguay unsatisfactory and
thought that the Contracting Parties should examine the position again in the
vent that Uruguay did not sign either the Annecy or Torquay Protocol
before 21 October. GATT/CP.6/SR. 8
Page 7
The CHAIRMAN then referred to the list of Status of Protocols contained
in page 1 of the document.
Mr. MELLO (Brazil) said that Protocol 2, modifying Article XXIV would
soon be accepted by his government.
U SAW OHN TIN (Burma) said that there were 8 protocols which had not
been signed or accepted by Burma. He had received advice from his
government that instructions had been issued for the signing of all of
then before the close of the session.
Mr. SCHNAKE (Chile) said that he was waiting for information.
Mr. TAPIHERU (Indonesia), referring to the Fifth Protocol of
Rectifications, hoped that the protocol would be signed in the course of
this session.
The CHAIRMAN then referred to pages 3 9 .of GATT/CP.6/20, Status of
Schedules, and said that this had been issued by the Secretariat for the
formation of the Contracting Parties. It was possible that the
information was not quite complete and that delegates night wish to rake
some amendments.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the contracting parties might revert to
these questions at a later stage and review all these matters beforeetho
close of this session.
This suggestion approved..
7. Brzilian Internal Taxes
M. PFLIIMLIN (France) said that the question had been fully examined
at Torquey and a working party had reported (GATT/CP.5/37). The French
Delegation had requested inclusion of this item on the Agenda for the
present session in order to indicate the great importance they attached
to it and to give the Brazilian Delegation an opportunity to report on
developments since the Fifth Session.
Mr.MELLO (Brazil) said that the working party at Torquay had agreed
that the draft Law No. 483/50 was the first step in a gradual process to
remove all the alleged discriminatory taxes and had considered the draft law
as a satisfactory solution. The Brazilian Congress was considering the
draft law at present and he had no reason to believe that there would be
any difficulty in its approval; there was no reason except the slowness of
legislative procedure, why the draft law had not yet received, the approval
of the Brazilian Congress.
M. PFLIMLIN (France) thanked the Brazilian delegate for his statement
and expressed the hope that an appropriate law would be enacted at an early
date.
It was agreed that this item should be kept on the Agenda until final
information was received from the Brazilian delegation.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | gm644tb4533 | Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.11/Corr and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gm644tb4533 | gm644tb4533_90270198.xml | GATT_140 | 274 | 1,972 | GENERAL AGREEMENT RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND GATT/CP.6/SR .l1/Corr
5 October 1951
TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/
FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page. 7
M. Locuyer's statement should read as follows:
"M. LECUYER (France) explained why this matter had been placed on the
agenda and was now being withdrawn. It arose following negotiations undertaken
with the United States Government at Geneva and Torquay which had resulted in
the binding of a certain number of duties in the special tariff of French West
Africae Later investigation into the ec6nomic conditions of that territory had
shown that such binding of duties was not yet timely and the French Delegation
intended to ask the Contracting Parties for the authority to undertake new
negotiations with the United States with a view to possible future release from these obly
gationsAs a result of informal conversations with the United States Delegation,
however, certain points requiring further clarification had been raised. He
therefore informed the Contracting Parties that it would probably not be before
the Seventh Session that France would ask for authority to renegotiate with the
United States. In the meantime the two Governments would try to make some
progress in this matter by means of bilateral conversations during the intersessional
period.
Mre. Thorp's statement should read as follows:
Mr. THORP (United States) took note of the French delegation's intention to
place the matter on the agenda for the Seventh Session and stated that his government
would be prepared to study the question after it received the more detailed information
which the French Government proposed to submit following the close of the Sixth Session. |
GATT Library | fj987nd9346 | Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting : Held at the Palais de Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday 25 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 27, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 27/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.11 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fj987nd9346 | fj987nd9346_90270197.xml | GATT_140 | 2,935 | 18,913 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR.11
27 September 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais de Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday 25 September 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed. 1. Nicaragua-El Salvador Free-Trade Area
2. South Africa-Southern Rhodesia Customs Union
3. Report on Income and Expenditure
4. Belgian Tax (Allocation Familiale)
5. French West Africa Duties
1. Nicaragua-El Salvador Free-Trade Area. Examination under
Article XXIV (GATT/CP/104 and Add. 1 and GATT/CP.6/24)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Government of Nicaragua had given
notification in March 1951 of its intention to form a free-trade area
embracing its customs territory and that of El Salvador. The text of the
draft treaty was distributed in GATT/CP/104/Add. 1 on 31 May. In view of
the fact that ample notice had been given, since the subject had been
incorporated in the advance Agenda of 18 July, ho thought it regrettable
that the Nicaraguan Government had not sent a delegation to the present
session. In fact, Nicaragua had not been represented at any session of
the Contracting Parties since the tariff negotiations at Annecy some two
years ago.
The treaty between the two countries had entered into force on
21 August, but it would still require the approval of the Contracting
Parties, under paragraph 10 of Article XXIV, since the free-trade area
envisaged embraced the territory of a contracting party and that of a
government not a contracting party. Furthermore, paragraph 7(a) of
Article XXIV requires the contracting party in question to provide
information regarding the proposed area to enable the Contracting Parties
to, make appropriate reports and recommendations to contracting parties.
In order to be in a position to make appropriate recommendations the Contracting
Parties would no doubt wish to consult with a representative of the
Government of Nicaragua, who could supply relevant information, and
possibly also with an observer of the Government of El Salvador.
In the absence of a Nicaraguan delegation, there would appear to
be two courses open to the Contracting Parties. The first would be for GATT/CP.6/SR. 11
Page 2
then to take noto of the agreement to form a free-trade area between
Nicaragua and El Salvador, without giving formal approval; or, alternatively,
the Contracting Parties could exxmine the provisions of the treaty and,
if it should appear that they generally conformed to the requirements of
Article XXIV, could consider the treaty as an interim agreement to which
they could give their provisional approval subject to a more complete
examination and final decision at the next sessions
Mr. THORP (United States)thought that no examination of the treaty
would be possible unless relevant questions could be addressed to the
Governments concerned. He proposed that the Contracting Parties take note
of the treaty, retain the item on the Agenda for the next sessions and
ask the Executive Secretary to send an urgent request to the Nicaraguan
Government to send a representative to that session.
This was agreed.
2. South Africa-Southern Rhodesia Customs Second Annual Report
(GATT/CP/121 and GATT/CP.6/27)
Mr. TOWNLEY (Southern Rhodesia) stated that the Annual Report
of the Customs Union Council gave a survey of activity since the position
had been examined at the last session, and in addition the Note by the
Secretariat bl ed the undertakings of the two Governments under as
the Declaration of the Contracting Parties approving the plan to re-
establish the Customs Union. He offered to supply any additional Information
the Contracting Parties might require.
Mr. PANBGROUW (South Africa) associated himself with Mr. Townly's
remarks and also offered to furnish additional information if required'
Mr. THORP (United States) recalled that the Declaration of 18 May
1949 calls for a report by the two Governments not later than 1 July 1952
non the progress achieved towards the elimination of tariffs and restrictions
on trade between their territories and towards the application of a uniform
tariff to imports from other contracting parties". He inquired whether it
would be possible to make this report available to the Contracting Parties
earlier than the date stipulated in the event that the next session should
be held in April or May of 1952.
Mr. TOWNLEY (Southern Rhodesia) undertook to inform his Government
of this request.
Mr. PASEGROUW (South Africa) agreed with this view, but explained
that the two Governments in preparing this report would wish to take into
account the Third Annual Report of the Customs Union Council, but the
latter could not be completed before the end of the third year of the
Agreement's enforcement, i.e. not before April 1952, and therefore it might
not be possible to submit the Report earlier than June.
The CHAIRMAN concluded that the Contracting Parties should take note
of the fact that a progress report would be submitted by the two Governments
not later than 1 July 1952. GATT/CP. 6/SR. I1
Page 3
This was agreed.
3, Report on Income and Expenditure: Consideration of the Establishment
of a Working Capital Fund, and Budget for 1952 (GATT/ CP.6/10 & 15 &
(Corr.1)
The CHAIRMAN proposed to discuss separately the Financial Report,
the Budget for 1952 and the proposal for a Working Capital Fund.
(a) The Financial Report
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that 1951 was the first year
in which the Contracting Parties had been self'-supporting. While the 1948-
1949 financial year ended with a deficit, a substantial surplus had been
achieved in 1950. In spite of an increased work load in 1950, the
combined ICITO-GATT expenditure last year had been reduced by 15% as
compared with 1949.
Savings effected in 1950 could be listed under the following
headinges:
1. Conferences: As the Torquay Conference continued in 1951,
part of the appropriations included in the 1950 budget has
been surrendered and new appropriations included in the'
1951 budget.
2. Printing: This applies also to the appropriations for the
printing of the Torquay and Consolidated Schedules which were
not used in 1950.
3. Experts and Consultants: It had been possible to dispense
with the services of experts or consultants in 1950.
4. Unforeseen : It had not been necessary to use the provision
for unforeseen expenditure,
5. Established Posts: Thanks t the policy of deferring as long
as possible the filling of vacancies, the establishment had
been below the manning table, resulting in a saving of
about $25,000.
6. Common Services: As a result of the introduction of new methods
of financial controls, such as the use of monthly budgets, of
improved efficiency within the Secretariat, and of reduced
demands on United Nations' services, expenditure on common
services in 1950 had been 60% lower than in 1949. The savings
on common services amounted to about $100.OO, or about 25% of
the total 1950 budget.
As regards 1951, the income situation developed favourably, as
contributions were coning in earlier and more regularly than in preceding
years: receipts corresponded to 80% of the income budgeted for. Information
had been received as regards the date on which current contributions from
prevent contracting parties would become available, except from Brazil and GATT/CP. 6/SR; 11
Page 4
Greece. The contributions from the acceding government who signed the
Torquay Protocol should be forthcoming in the following month. Since,
however, the time limits for accession had been extended for the
Philippines and Korea and, possibly, for Urugaay, no contribution from
those governments could be expected for 1951. The expenditure incurred so
far was well within the appropriations: the table on page 2 of the Report
indicated the expenditure authorized during the first nine months of the
year, as well as actual disbursements and unliquidated obligations at"
31 August 1951.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Working Party on
'the Budget in Torquay, the United Nations salary scheme had been adopted,
and had resulted in a reduction in appropriation.
The CHAIRMAN asked for comments on the section of the report
relating to the arrears in contributions. He noted that certain governments
had found it difficult to send in their contributions in tine. Relevant
information had been received from the Governments of Chile and Nicaragua
and he enquired if the representatives of Brazil and Greece could do the
Mr. ARGYOPOULOS (Greece) stated that the payment due should be
received soon since the administrative formalities required in his country
had almost been completed, He undertook to write to his Govermnent to
speed up the matter,
Mr. MELLO (Brazil). said that a special bill was in an advanced
state of discussion in the Brazilian Congress and that he expected a
positive decision at an early date.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that it would be appropriate for a Working
Party to consider the unpaid contributions by Governments which were no
longer parties to the General Agreement, namely China, which never paid any
contribution, Lebanon and Syria; his remark also applied to the contri-
butions of acceding governments, namely Uruguay and Germany, to the
expenses of Tariff Confereneces
Mr. HAGEMANN (Germany) regretted that it would be impossible for
his Government to contribute more than 5,000 dollars for 1950, for the
reasons set forth on page 6 of GATT/CP.6/15.
The DEPUTY EXEUTIVE SECRETARY introduced the 1952 budget,
pointing out that these estimates ware of a tentative nature and would have
to be revised in the light of decisions to be taken at the Sixth Session,
although it was not expected that the magnitude of total estimates would
be substantially affected by such decisions. It would therefore be
appropriate to defer a detailed consideration of th-se estimates by the
Working Party until the latter part of the Session.
It had been possible to propose a.slight reduction in the
appropriations for recurrent expenditure, but a now item had beet introduced GATT/CP.6/SR. 11
Page 5
to reimburse ICITO for the expenses of the Second Session, in accordance with
the decision of the Contracting Parties in 1948 to make such repayment if
the International Trade Organization should not be established. Detailed
information had been given in the Schedules and accompanying notes
repr duced in Document GATT/CP.6E/10. Appropriations for common services
had been reduced but the manning table for 1952 provided for a few
additional posts. Two new posts of junior economic offices had been
proposed; if vacancies are taken into account this proposal would permit, an
increase of 6 offices in the substantive services as compared with the
present actual establishment.
With respect to income it was suggested to keep the sane figure for
total contributions as last year and to appropriate $82,000 from the
contemplated 1951 surplus to cover the balance.
Dr van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) thought that the appropriateness
of the proposals could not well be judged finally until decisions had bean
taken on the Future Administration of the Agreement. For instance, it was
not certain if the present proposals would be able to cope with any increased
intersessional activities of the Contracting Parties.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, agreeing with this point, suggested that
the proposals could well be revised during the course of the session if
necessary after the Working Party on the Continuing Administration ot
the Agreement had concluded its work.
The delegates of Canada, India, Pakistan and Italy, supported
by the Chairman, expressed their appreciation for the economical and
efficient way the funds of the Contracting Parties had been husbanded by
the Secretariat.
(c) Working Capital Fund
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY recalled that the Contracting
Parties had decide to consider a prop sal for the setting up of a Working
Capital Fund at the present session. The Secretariat would not press for
the discussion of such a proposal at the present session, provided that
'the Executive Secretary were authorised to keep the reserve set up last
year, and that and 1951 surplus over and above the $82,00
appropriated to cover expienditure in 1952 wow added. to that reserve.
The Contracting Parties decoded to set up a working party with
the following tents of reference and composition:
Working Party 5
Terms...of ,Reference:
"To examine any questions arising in connection with the financing
of the 1951 budget and proposals for the budget for 1952, and to submit
recommendations thereon." GATT/CP. 6/SR.11
Page 6
Chairman: Mr. ADARKAR
Austria :Ital y
Canada Turkey
Czechoslovakia United Kingdom
Indonesia United States
4. Belgian Tax (Allocation Familiale) (GATT/CP.6/25 and Add. 1)
Mr, BORRESEN (Norway), referring to the statement of his
delegation, drawing attention to the special charge of 6% which Norwegian
goods being imported into Belgium by the Belgian Government, provinces or
municipalities, were being subjected to, stated that bilateral negotiations
entered into with the Belgian Government had failed to show any results
so that his Government had felt compelled to bring the matter before the
Contracting Parties under Article XXIII of the Agreements Extensive
relevant information had been furnished to the Belgian Government, in
support of the contention that contributions which have to be paid by
Norwegian manufacturers to the social welfare funds of their employees
are not less than those levied in Belgium, but no satisfaction had been
received although exemptions from this particular taxation had been
granted to imports from France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,
Similar exemptions had been granted to Sweden, apparently as a result of the
most recent trade agreement between that country and Belgium. His
Goverment could draw no other conclusion that that the Belgian Government
was not acting in accordance with Article I of the General Agreement and
that, in fact, discrimination was being applied. Mr. Borresen offered to
provide statistical data if required, and said that it would not be
difficult for him to prove that the social contributions of Norwegian
manufacturers were at least equal to those of Belgian marufacturers
Mr. SVEINBJØRSSON (Denmark), speaking in support of the
Norwegian delegate, stated that his country suffered from the some
discrimination and his Government was reluctantly forced to submit the
question tr the Contracting Parties since bilateral negotiations had
failed. In his view there could be no doubt that discrimination was being
practised contrary to Article I of the Agreement.
M. ');9 (Bélgium) regretted the charges made against his
Government but. -)UAd not deny that. to a degree, these charges were
justified in view of Article I of the General Agreement, He explained
that the corrections which the Belgian Government was trying to make in
the present system had been held up by the difficulties resulting from a
duality of competence existing between ae Governmental administration,
on the one hand, and the commission which by law, had been appointed to
administer the taxes, on the other, .;ng Articles 130 and 132 of the
relevant law, he explained how the original intention of the tax had been
to compensate inequalities in competitive conditions between Belgian and
foreign producers; it was, in his view, certain that the Belgian
Government could not be accused on this score since the General Agreement Page 7
provided for such possibilities, In the case of Frances the Netherlands,
Sweden and the United Kingdom,. his Government had used its prerogative
to exempt imports and he could not disguise the fact that there was a
divergence of opinion between his Government and the commission
administering the taxes over the question of exemption for Danish and
Norwegian products. However, the Economic Co-ordinating Committee of
the Belgian Ministries would be meeting that samie week and he would go to
Brussels to explain the point of view of the Contracting Parties and
especially that of the Governments of Denmark and Norway. M. Suetens
asked that the debate be closed, to be re-opened later in the session when
he would be in a position to make a fuller statement on behalf of his
Government.
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) thanked M. Suetens for his statement and
agreed to his proposal.
M. SUETENS (Belgium) replying to Mr. ADARKAR (India) who showed
interest in the mechanism and application of the taxes, assured the Indian
delegate of his willingness to have any relevant questions answered by
competent members of his delegation.
The CHAIRMAN, n up the discussion, concluded that there
appeared to be agreement that exemptions for foreign products were not
applied in conformity with Article I of the Agreement. He proposed that
tho suggestion of the Belgian delegate be followed and the debate be
adjourned until a fuller report could be submitted by the Belgian
Government. He therefore suggested that the Contracting Parties
take note of the statements made, and retain the item on the Agenda until
a later date during the session.
This was agreed
4. Adjustment Of Certain Customs Duties fpr Imports into French
M. LECUYER (France) stated that his Government had negotiated
with the United States at Torquay on the consolidation of certain tariff
duties in French West Africa, A later investigation into conditions of
that territory had shown that such consolidation was not yet timely,
and in informal conversations with the United States delegation sone
further questions requiring clarification had been raised, He therefore
requested the Contracting Parties to withdraw the item front the Agenda
of the present session..
1, Mr. THORP (United States) supported the proposal made by
Mr. Lecuyer,
this was agreed
The CHAIRMAN anouneed that the item to be discussed on the follow-
ing day would be "The Termination of Obligations between the United States
and Czechoslovakia". In reply to a request by the Czechoslovak delegate
to be called upon as the first speaker, the Chairman stated that it would be
the prerogative of the United States delegation to introduce the subject
since the iten had been placed on the Agenda at their request. However, if
the Czechoslovak delegate iotod to raise a pint of order, thiB would have
to be given priority.
The meeting at 6.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | qy923xm1091 | Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 6, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.15/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qy923xm1091 | qy923xm1091_90270208.xml | GATT_140 | 1,635 | 10,625 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP .6/SR .l5/Corr .1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 6 October 1951
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING
Insert after the Chairman's remarks the following paragraph:
"Mr. DHARMA VIRA India) said that if he had understood the United Kingdom
representative and others correctly, the idea was that the paper should be
referred to the Working Party for examination, without committing the Contracting
Parties to the necessity for such arrangements, and the Working Party, after
examination, would make to the Contracting Parties such recommendation as
they might consider necessary. In the circumstances, he desired clear instructions
being given to the Working Party in the matter."
Pages 3 and 4
Mr. Thorp's statement should read as follows:
"Mr. THORP (United States) commended the Secretariat on a careful and thorough
presentation of a difficult subject. The review of quantitative restrictions
under Article XII on discriminatory administration of restrictions had a
significance in the operation of the General Agreement, as steps, provided for
in the Agreement, intended to facilitate the elimination of quantitative
restrictions applied for balance-of-payment reasons. Both the General Agreement
and the International Monetary Fund had been launched at a time when import and
exchange restrictions were prevalent and were considered necessary in the
prevailing circumstances. It had been hoped that as time went on countries would
be able to deal with their problems more effectively, and that both import and
exchange restrictions would be progressively eliminated with a view to permitting
market forces to resume their traditional influence upon trade and finance. The
draft report showed that encouraging signs could be discerned in the situation
obtaining today, which was essentially different from the immediate post-war
period. The dominating problem in those days had been the intense preoccupation
of many countries with dollar deficits. Towards the solution of that problem
the United States had contributed some 30 billion dollars in the form of grants
and loans. The problem which confronted many countries today, if more complex,
was less acute and more diffused, and it would be fair to say that, in spite
of difficulties, many countries are in a position to undertake substantial
removal of discrimination and relaxation of non-discriminatory restrictions,
and to make significant progress toward convertibility.
While not attempting a detailed comment on the Secretariat's draft, Mr. Thorp
drew attention to one or two points. The paragraph on page 30, referring to
"the purchase of raw materials for strategic stockpiles and for armament productions",
might create the impression that the increased dollar earnings of many countries GATT/OP.6/SR.15/Corr.1
Page 2
since the middle of 1950 was of short duration and was caused entirely
by United States governmental purchases. During the whole postwar period
emphasis had been placed on increasing production, especially in the
industrial field, and as a result of the recent industrial boom, which was
well on its way before the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, output had
advanced during 1949 and 1950 by some 25%. This was the most important
element in the increased demand for raw materials and primary goods and in the
the shift in the terms of trade between the industrial and primary producing
countries. The pressure created by armaments production had been very
limited so far and a strain was felt only by a few countries. The
phenomenal rise in prices during the third quarter of 1950 was due more
to speculative buying than to stockpiling purchases by governments which,
as far as the United States was concerned, had been moderate; in fact,
the executive branch of the Un: tod States Government had been criticized
for inadequate purchasing. It migh therefore be suggested that we
are going through a basic change in the terms of trade, whose effect
on the balances of payments might be of a more permanent nature than was
suggested in the draft report. It was also disturbing to find that the
draft ended on a note of pessimism, emphasis being laid on obstacles to
the liberalisation of trade: The report should not create the preponderant
impression that tremendous difficulties lay ahead, and therefore the draft
should be amended to indicate more hope of achieving the final goal which
had been laid down in the Agreement and accepted by all contracting parties.
Pages 4 and 5
Mr. Adarkar's statement should read as follows:
"He drew attention to the statements on pages 10 and 53-59 in which
references were made to financial disequilibrium in the post-war period.
It was stated that the objective of the Contracting Parties was the
ultimate removal of balance-of-payments restrictions when the world
economy recovered from the post-war financial disequilibrium. It was not
clear, however, that such a permanent recovery had taken place. He agreed
with the remarks on page 53, where the uncertainties of the future and the
obstacles to the removal of restrictions were discussed. It might be inferred
from the statistical tàble on page 13 that an improvement in the balance
of payments had been achieved by many countries. But if one proceeded to
examine how and why these improvements had been brought about and whether
they were temporary or permanent in natures one would soon find that the
improvements since the middle of 1950 had been achieved mainly on account
of the scarcity of key industrial materials; there was, therefore, no
guarantee that these improvements would be lasting. The United States
representative had taken exception to the passages referring to obstacles
to the removal of restrictions, but it was doubtful whether this was
entirely out of place. No one should be surprised that these obstacles
existed, and it would be unrealistic to ignore their importance; the
question was only how long the restrictions would remain and in what
way they should be dealt with. All the contracting parties were no
doubt working towards the objective of removing restrictions, but it
might take some time to produce tangible results. Furthermore, it was worth
remembering that quantitative restrictions, especially if discrimination
was involved, were damaging to the interests of the importing country GATT/CP.6/SR.15/Corr .1
Page 3
sometimes even more than to the potential exporters. The Indian Government
had always been ready to modify or relax its import restrictions even when
there was only a slight improvement in the balance-of-payment situation,
with the result that sometimes relaxation had gone too far.
The point made on page 31 (lines 10 - 12) that restrictions tended to
discriminate only between two groups - the hard and the soft currency groups
instead of individual hard and soft currencies - was worthy of emphasis.
In fact, the recent licensing policy of India had been liberalised along
these lines. The figures given in Table II on page 14 might be misleading
since increases in foreign exchange holdings of sterling area countries,
including India, consisted almost exclusively of sterling balances not all
of which could be regarded as monetary reserves in the sense of a source
of liquidity. On page 55, the draft report quite correctly stated that
it could not be assumed that when the distinction between hard and soft
currencies had disappeared there would be no further need for import
restrictions because discrimination was almost inevitable when currencies
were inconvertible. This was a point which deserved the closest attention
of the Contracting Parties and which should be further pursued by a working
party.
Referring to the questions of procedures to be considered under the
other two items, Mr. Adarkar stressed the desirability of avoiding any
duplication of work and a conflict in arrangements for the consultations
which were to be carried out by the Fund in March 1952, and those by the
Contracting Parties at about the same time. In view of the close connection
between quantitative restrictions and exchange restrictions these consultations
should be appropriately coordinated. The outcome of the consultations
undertaken by the Fund might be of great importance to the Contracting
Parties in carrying out their own consultations. It might be suggested
that the consultaions of the Contracting Parties should be arranged to
follow those of the Fund. In conclusion, he assured the Contracting
Parties that the Government of India was doing everything in its power
to eliminate its import restrictions."
Mr. Leckie's statement should read as follows:
"Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) thought that the draft represented a
commendable practical effort; it embodied an analysis of the information
received from governments concerning various types of restriction
applied under different circumstances, whose main features it had ably brought
into focus. Its particular merit lay in its concentration on the underlying
factors which gave rise to the need for restrictions but the historical
account could perhaps be brought more up-to-date. In point of details,
Section 5 appeared to exaggerate the self-perpetuating nature of restrictive
measures and did not bring out the underlying difficulties of the situation
referred to earlier in the draft Report. The problem of dollar scarcity
had indeed become more complex and diffused, but it had also become more
acute for some countries. GATT/CP.6/ SR.15/Corr.1
Page 4
Regarding the structure of the Reports the United Kingdom Delegation
had some doubt about the wisdom of including balance-of-payments data in
Part II dealing with the position of individual countries, since it was
not intended that a study should be made of the justification for the
restrictions Part Il should, therefore, include only summary notes
describing the restrictions applied by individual countries and these
should be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Delegations
concerned. The replies to the questionnaire varied considerably in quality
and it should be one of the tasks of the Working Party to see that there
was uniformity in the information presented so as not to impair the quality
of the Report. Mr. Leckie believed that the questions of procedure under
items (b) and (c) could be left entirely for study by the Working Party." |
GATT Library | rh767zs4136 | Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 9, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.15/Corr.2 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rh767zs4136 | rh767zs4136_90270209.xml | GATT_140 | 787 | 5,331 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL. AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.15/Corr.2
TARIFFS AND TRADE 9 October 1951
ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THM FIFTEENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 7
Replace Mr. Reisman's statement by the following:
"Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that the review of quantitative restrictions
applied for financial reasons and the report on discrimination gave the
Contracting Parties an opportunity to take stock of where they were and
were going in this important field of commercial policy. In 1947 when the
General Agreement was written, it was clearly agreed that what was wanted
was to establish as soon as possible a multilateral system of world trade
free of restrictions and discrimination. Countries recognized, of course,
that this could not be achieved immediately and the General Agreement was
written in a realistic way to permit the use of discriminatory restrictions
during the postwar period when countries were attempting to restore their
production arid re-establish the normal channels of trade. It had been
expected, however, that by 1951 countries would be well on their way to the
achievement of these objectives.
"While there had certainly been some progress these last four years,
the widespread use of discriminatory restrictions by many countries showed
that the goal of multilateral trade free of discriminatory restrictions was
still a long way off. To some extent there had perhaps been too much
optimism when drawing up the Agreement. The serious economic disruption
which the war had left in its wake had been underestimated, and countries
had planned for a world of peace, not a world of cold and hot war.
Nevertheless, very real progress had been made and most countries had by
1950 succeeded in making good the damage caused by the war, Production and
trade were considerably above the pre-war levels and significant progress
had been made towards reaching equilibrium in their international accounts.
In particular the improvement which had occurred by 1950 in overcoming the
dollar gap had been especially gratifying. It appeared, however, that
the progress which had been made in removing restrictions and discrimination
in international commerce had not kept pace with the real improvement in
basic economic conditions.
"The Korean war had, of course, introduced a number of complicating
elements into the picture. But the effects of the Korean war and the
active preparations for defence were not entirely negative as far as their GATT/CP .6/SR.15/Corr.2
Page 2
impact on international trade were concerned. Some countries found them-
selves in a much better position as far as their reserves and balance of
payments were concerned, while others which were directly involved in
defence measures had suffered some deterioration in their position.
Taking all these factors into account in appraising the present position,
it appeard to Canada that some countries had not moved as rapidly as
their circumstances would have permitted to the progressive relaxation
of trade restrictions and discriminatory practices.
"Canada placed special emphasis on the need to re-examine the appli-
cation of discriminatory trade restrictions. The replies to the question-
naire showed that all countries, with minor exceptions which were applying
trade restrictions were applying them in a discriminatory manner against
the dollar countries. While such practices might have been justified
during the period when the dollar problem was the main elements in the post-
war trade disequilibrium, it should be recognized that real progress had
been made in overcoming the dollar shortage. It was not unreasonable to
expect that discrimination against dollar imports should be reduced in
keeping with the progress in overcoming the dollar problem. There was no
automatic link between the need to restrict imports and the need to
discriminate between supplying countries. In fact, the General Agreement
envisaged that in certain cases quantitative import restrictions might be
required after the post-war transitional period, whereas trade discrimination
would disappear entirely. Even in circumstances, however, when discri-
minatory trade restrictions might be justified, it did not follow auto-
matically that such discrimination should be against dollar countries. It
would be useful if the Contracting Parties, in their consideration of
these problems, gave increasing attention to the desirability of doing
away with discriminatory practices as soon as possible.
In conclusion, the Canadian delegation believed that with the present
acute shortage of many goods and the heavy inflationary pressure in many
countries, the existing structure of restrictions had to a large extent
become obsolete. In these circumstances, while some fom of control
might indeed be necessary, it should be recognized that the removal of
restrictions would help countries deal with the problems of shortages and
inflation. He hoped that countries would take this opportunity to re-examine
their position with a view to removing these restrictions which were not
strictly necessary either for financial reasons or for considerations of
defence." |
GATT Library | qt382fj4865 | Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 28 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 2, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 02/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.15 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qt382fj4865 | qt382fj4865_90270207.xml | GATT_140 | 3,735 | 24,368 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/SR.15
2 October 1951
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON ORlGINAL: ENGLISH
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 28 September 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Signature of Protocols at end of Session
2. Continuing Administration of the Agreement
(Secretariat Services)
3. Balance-of-Payments Restrictions.
1. Signature of the Protocol of Modifications and Rectifications at
the Close of the Sixth Session (GATT/CP.6/30)
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the note, presented by Working Party
2 on Schedules, on the signature of the protocol to be drawn up at the close
of the Sixth Session, and urged all delegations which did not possess full powers
to sign such a protocol to secure powers from their governments so that they
would be able to sign before leaving Geneva.
2 Arrangements for the Continuing Administration of the General Agreement:
(GATT/CP.6/13/Add.1) (continued from the third meeting)
Mr. THORP (United States), introducing the draft decision which called
for consultation by the Executive Secretary with the Economic and Social
Council in procedural arrangements to ensure cooperation (GATT/CP.6/13/Add.1)
recalled the discussion at the third meeting of this Session at which many
delegations had questioned the wisdom of the earlier United States proposal
on secretariat services. The United States delegation, while still believing
that the proposal that administration of the General Agreement should be
financed by the United Notions deserved careful consideration, considered
that no action should be taken along those lines unless there was general agree-
ment among the contracting parties. His delegation had intended that the earlier
proposal should be deferred to a later date, but same delegations had objected to
this on the ground that it might imply approval in principle. In view of
this objection the United States delegation had now decided to withdraw its
earlier proposal altogether, and accordingly requested that the last paragraph GATT/CP.6/SR.15
Page 2.
of the draft decision be deleted. The decision would then deal only with
the establishment of formal relationships between the United Nations and the
Contracting Parties; it would enable the two bodies to arrange procedures
for the mutual transmittal of documents, for proposing items on each other's
agenda and for providing common services in the interest of economy and
avoidance of duplication of work. Mr. Thorp suggested that the draft
decision should be referred to the Working Party on Administration.
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) thanked the United States representative
for modifying the draft decision, since it was more appropriate to withdraw
withdraw the earlier proposal than to ask the Contracting Parties to decide
to take action at a later date. The lack of formal arrangements for coopera-
tion with the United Nations had caused no difficulty for the Contracting
Parties but it might be the view of the Economic and Social Council that
formal arrangements should be made. The draft decision should therefore be
referred to the Working Party for examination, but without the Contracting
Parties being committed as to the necessity for such arrangements.
M. LECUYER (France) said that his delegation had also felt some con-
cern about the scope of the United States proposal, but now agreed that the
question of procedural arrangements for effective cooperation with the United
Nations should be referred to the Working Party.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) wished to know whether the Working Party was
to examine the need for such arrangements, or whether it would begin its
study on the assumption that the Contracting Parties had agreed that such
arrangements were necessary.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Working Party should take account of
the discussion of this meetings which seemed to indicate that such arrange-
ments were likely to be necessary although there would be nothing to prevent
the Working Party from reaching a conclusion to the contrary.
Mr. THORP (United States) clarified his proposal by stating that his
delegation had in mind that the Working Party would first consider whether
the question of arrangements with the United Nations arose, and would examine
the draft decision only if the answer to that question were in the affirmative.
It was agreed to refer the draft decision to the Working Party to
be examined in the light of the discussions at this meetings.
3. Balance-of-Payments Restrictions:
(a) Review of import restrictions under Article XII and second
report on discrimination (GATT/CP.6/12)
(b) Preparations for third report on discrimination,
(c) Procedures for consultations in 1952 (GATT/CP.6/19)
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia), addressing himself to item (a), said that the
draft report prepared by the Secretariat would provide a good basis for
discussion in a working party. In the past Australia had conducted its foreign
trade on a multilateral basis and now looked forward to the time when it could
resume that policy. Traditionally Australia had a deficit with the United States GATT/CP.6/SR.15
Page 3
and Canada and a surplus with Europe- a situation which gave rise to no
difficulty in the days of convertible currencies. This system had broken down
in the last decade and it was the earnest with of his country that it could be
restored. As regards items (b) and (c), these were technical in nature and
could best be dealt with in a working party.
Mr. THORP (United States) commended the Secretariat on a careful and
thorough presentation of a difficult subject. The review of quantitative
restrictions under Article XII and the reports under Article XIV on discri-
minatory administration of restrictions had a significance in the operation
of the General Agreement, which might not be generally realized; they held an
important place among the step, provided for in the Agreement, intended to
facilitate the eventual elimination of the quantitative restrictions applied
for balance-of-payment reasons. Both the General Agreement and the International
Monetary Fund had been launched at a time when import and exchange restrictions
were prevalent and were considered necessary in the prevailing circumstances.
It had been hoped that as time went on countries would be able to deal with
their problems more effectively, and that both import and exchange restrictions
would be progressively eliminated except in a few well-defined circumstances,
the ultimate aim being that market forces should operate again. The draft
report showed that encouraging signs could be discerned in the situation
obtaining today, which was essentially different from the immediate post-war
period. The dominating problem in those days had been the intense preoccupation
of many countries with the dollar shortage. Towards the solution of that
problem the United States had contributed same 30 billion dollars in the form
of grants and loans. The problem which confronted many countries today, if
more complex, was less acute and more diffused, and it would be fair to say
that, in spite of difficulties, many were in a position to undertake a progressive
elimination of their restrictions and to make their currencies convertible.
While not attempting a detailed comment on the Secretariat's draft,
Mr. Thorp drew attention to one or two points. The paragraph on page 30,
referring to "the purchase of raw materials for strategic stockpiles and for
armament production", might create the impression that the increased dollar
earnings of many countries since the middle of 1950 was of short duration and
was caused entirely by United States governmental purchases. During the
whole postwar period emphasis had been placed on increasing production,
especially in the industrial field, and as a result of the recent industrial
boom output had advanced between 1949 and 1950 by some 25%. This must have
been an important element in the increased demand for raw materials and
primary goods and in the shift in the terms of trade between the industrial
and primary producing countries. The pressure created by armaments production
had been very limited so far and a strain was felt only by a few countries.
The phenomenal rise in prices during the third quarter of 1950 was due
more to speculative buying than to stockpiling purchases by governments
which, as far as the United States was concerned, had been anything but
overwhelming in size; in fact, the executive branch of the United States
Government had been criticized for inadequate purchasing. It might therefore
be said that a basic change had occurred in the terms of trade, whose effect GATT/CP.6/SR.15
Page 4 .
on the balances of payments might be of a more permanent nature than was
suggested in the draft report. It was also disturbing to find that the
draft ended on a note of pessimism, emphasis being, laid on obstacles to
the liberalisation of trade. The report should not create the impression
that tremendous difficulties lay ahead, and therefore the draft should be
amended to indicate more hope of achieving the final goal which had been
laid down in the Agreement and accepted by all contracting parties.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY thanked . the United States representative
for his generous words in describing the draft report, and mentioned
that the staff of the Fund had rendered valuable assistance in its
preparation. He said the draft did not purport to be complete; it had
been propared on the assumption that the Contracting Parties, after
reviewing the restrictions, would themselves decide what conclusions
should be added at the end of the report.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) said the draft not only dealt with the
problem throughly and objectively, but had the virtue of being brief.
He drew attention to the statements on pages 10, 46 and 47 in which
references were made to the expected recovery from the postwar financial
disequilibrium and to the objective of the contracting parties to conduct
their trade relations in such a way as to ensure expanding production and
exchange of goods. It might be inferred from the statistical table on
page 13 that an improvement in the balance of payments had been achieved
by many countries. But if one proceeded to examine how and why these
improvements had been brought about and whether they were temporary or
permanent in nature, one would soon find that the improvements since the
middle of 1950 had been achieved mainly on account of the scarcity of
key industrial materials; there was, therefore, no guarantee that these
improvements would be lasting. The United States representative had taken
exception to the passages referring to obstacles to the removal of
restrictions, but it was doubtful whether this was entirely out of place.
No one should be surprised that these obstacles existed, and it would be
unrealistic to ignore their importance the question was only how long
the restrictions would remain and in what way they should be dealt with.
All the correcting parties were no doubt working towards the objective of
removing restrictions, but it might take some time to produce tangible
results. Furthermore, it was worth remembering that quantitative res-
trictions, especially if discrimination was involved, were damaging to
the interests of the importing country sometimes even more than to the
potential exporters. The Indian Government had always been ready to modify
or relax its import restrictions oven when there was only a slight im-
provement in the balance-of-payment situation, with the result that
sometimes relaxation had gone too far.
The point made on page 31 (lines 10 to 12) that restriction
tended to be applied only against hard currencies was particularly worthy
of emphasis; in this manner the licensing policy of India had recently
been liberalized to a great extent. The figures given in Table II on
page 14 might be misleading since increases in foreign exchange holdings
of sterling area countries, including India, consisted almost exclusively
of sterling balances not all of which could be regarded as monetary
reserves in the sense of a source of liquidity. On page 55 the draft GATT/CP.6/SR. 15
Page 5
stressed that discrimination was in almost all cases an essential element
in the policy of restriction and that discrimination was almost inevitable
when many currencies were inconvertible. This was a point which deserved
the closest attention of the Contracting Parties and which should be
further pursued by a working party.
Referring to the questions of procedure to be considered under
the other two items, Mr. Adarkar stressed the desirability of
avoiding any duplication of work and a conflict in arrangements for the
consultations which were to be carried out by the Fund in March 1952 and
those by the Contracting Parties at about the same time. In view of the
close connection between quantitative restrictions and exchange restrictions
these consultations should be appropriately coordinated. The outcome of
the consultations undertaken by the Fund might be of great importance to
the Contracting Parties in carrying out their own consultations. It
night be suggested that the consultations of the Contracting Parties
should be arranged to follow those of the Fund. In conclusion, he assured
the Contracting Parties that the Government of India was doing everything
in its' power to eliminate its import restrictions.
Dr. BOTHA(South Africa) agreed that the draft report would serve
as a guide for the working party to be appointed to study the subject.
He was very forcibly struck by the tact, amply illustrated in the draft,
that the contracting parties were making steady progress towards the
relaxation of restrictions and the elimination of discrimination, and
that some countries had even completely dispensed with such restrictions.
It was to be hoped that a new period of intensification of restrictions
and extension of discrimination was not approaching, as seemed to be the
fear indicated in the draft. On the other hand, the continued reliance
by certain governments on bilateral arrangements would seem to be hampering
further progress. The information submitted by certain contracting
parties in response to Question 10 of the questionnaire seemed to confirm
his Government's impression that, despite the declared intention of the
contracting parties to concert their trade policies and practices with a
view to promoting the early re-establishment of a multilateral system of
international trade, recent developments had steadily taken governments
further away from that basic objective of the Agreement, New bilateral
trade agreements were still being negotiated, the basic elements of which
seemed to run completely counter to what the contracting parties should
try to achieve. When becoming a contracting party, in June 1948, his
Government firmly believed that the early re-establishment of a multi-
lateral non-discriminatory system of trade was the principal objective of
the General Agreement and it was only in this spirit that South Africa
had accepted the limitations which adherence to the Agreement imposed on
its freedom of action. When bilateralism was becoming over more the
prevailing system, as at present, other countries found it decreasingly
difficult to observe the principles of multilateralism. Bilateral trading
or quotta arrangements, in restricting access to markets, affected the
interests of the countries which were striving to promote the objective
of multilateral trading. South Africa's export trade had in recent years
suffered considerably as a result of this tendency. The Union Government
naturally recognized that in the present circumstances bilateralism must
be regarded as a necessary evil, arising from the disturbing economic GATT/CP. 6/SR. 15
Page 6
conditions resulting from the last war, but it nevertheless held that
resort to bilateral methods of regulating trade should never exceed the
bounds of necessity. The objective of multilateralism, subscribed to
by all contracting parties would suffer a severe blow to the detriment of
further international economic cooperation if the countries should refuse
to make sacrifices to achieve that end.
Dr. Botha wished his remarks to be regarded as an invitation to
all contracting parties to take stock of the present situation rather
than as an expression of antagonism or criticism. The issue confronting
the Contracting Parties struck at the very foundation of the General
Agreement and had to be faced squarely if a rational trade policy for the
world was ever to be established. The Union Government was particularly
anxious that South African exporters should enjoy fair and equal access
to the markets of the other contracting parties and should not be
penalised because their Government had refused to abandon the principle of
multilateralism and to negotiate bilateral agreements in order to avoid
discrimination against its exports. South Africa could seek redress for
any impairment or nullification of its right and privileges under the
Agreement, but believed that the success of the Agreement depended very
largely on the spirit in which the participating countries approached their
obligations and responsibilities.
It was worth considering whether the recent tendencies in the
commercial policies of many countries could genuinely be regarded as
purely temporary digressions. The Contracting Parties must set a firm
course in the direction of multilateral trading or they would revert
individually to complete bilateralism. Unless progress were made towards
the restoration of multilateralism the Agreement would gradually lose its
adherents and eventually disintegrate completely. In conclusion,
Dr. Botha expressed the hope that the Contracting Parties would not evade
their responsibilities or fail to face issues which strike at the very
foundation of the trading system which they were trying to establish for
their common good.
Mr. COPPOLA D'ANNA (Italy) associated himself with the remarks
made by previous speakers regarding the quality of the draft report
prepared by the Secretariat. Improvements and modifications could be made s
so as to bring certain points more sharply into focues, but this could be
done by a working party. It was not a pessimistic report; there were
favourable developments as had bean indicated by the United States
representative, but undeniably unfavourable trends also existed, and to
present a complete picture both had to be taken into account.
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) thought that the draft represented a
commendable practical effort; it embodiod an analysis of the information
received from governments concerning various types of restriction applied
under different circumstances, whose common features had been ably brought
into focus. Its particular merit lay in its concentration on facts, but
those could perhaps be brought more up to date. In point of details, the
suggestions given in Section 5 perhaps over-exaggerated the self-
perpetuating nature of restrictive measures. The problem of the dollar GATT/CP.6/SR.15
Page 7
scarcity had indeed become more complex and diffused, but it had also
become more acute for sore countries. Regarding the structure of the
report the United Kingdom delegation had some doubt about the wisdom of
including balance-of-payments data since it was not intended that a study
should be made of the justification for the restrictions. Part II should,
therefore, include one summary note on the restrictions applied by
individual countries and this should be prepared by the Secretariat in
consultation with the delegations concerned; but the replies to the
questionnaire varied considerably in quality and it should be one of the
tasks of the working party to see that there was uniformity in the
information presented so as not to impair the quality of the report.
Mr. Leckie believed that the questions of procedure under items (b) and
(c) could be left entirely for study by the working party.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) agreed with the representative of South
Africa that this was an appropriate time to take stock of the numerous
bilateral arrangements which were in existence and to consider whether
they wore really necessary. The prevalence of bilateral arrangements
might compel other countries to make similar arrangements and thus the
scope of discrimination would be enlarged. The questions to be considered
at this session differed essentially from those raised at past sessions
in that they related to all the restrictions maintained for balance-of-
payment reasons.
Four years ago when the General Agreement was drafted it had been
the general expectation that multilateral trade would be re-established
and discrimination totally eliminated within a foreseeable time. A
transitional period was provided within which discriminatory restrictions
could be maintained only because it was thought that the post-war dis-
location in international financial relations could not be put right at
one stroke. Since then there had been some progress but it was insig-
nificant compared with what had been originally expected. The divergence
between the original expectation and the present circumstances might be
explained by developments in the world political situation. But, taking
into account the rise in the level of production and the financial
stability achieved in recent years the progress made in the liberalization
of trade had indeed been disappointing. The effect of the Korean war and
of the ensuing defence preparations had not been entirely negative; some
of the consequences might be held to be beneficial to the balance-of-
payments situation of many countries. Taking account of all these
factors the Canadian delegation was of the opinion that many contracting
parties had not taken full advantage of the circumstances and had not
moved forward as far as they could have done.
Canada's experience in the application of quantitative restrictions
and her attitude towards then had been outlined by Mr. Howe at an earlier
meeting. The Canadian Government believed that it was wrong to regard
quantitative restrictions and discriminations merely as passive effects of
other factors; they wore sometimes a cause of stagnation or further
deterioration. The removal of many restrictions, especially those of a
discriminatory nature, might very well prove an effective cure of existing
difficulties. The draft report suggested that discrimination must in most
cases be regarded as an essential part of restrictions but no logical GATT/CP.6/SR.15
Page 8
link was provided in the Agreement between quantitative restrictions as
such and their discriminatory application. Balance-of-payment restrictions
were accepted as a permanent feature of the Agreement to be applied in
certain circumstances, but discrimination was allowed only during the
post-war transitional period. With the recent improvement in the dollar
position of many countries it was reasonable to expect that progress
would be made in ending discrimination, and this should be given particular
attention by the working party when considering the draft report. In the
view of the Canadian legation, some contracting parties could take
immediate stops towards the elimination of restrictions and discrimination.
With the present acute shortage of certain materials and inflationary
pressures in many countries the existing structure of restrictions must
have become obsolete. No doubt some form of control was necessary, but
quantitative restrictions maintained ostensibly for balance-of-payment
reasons could not play that role. The Contracting Parties should not
let the present opportunity pass without taking effective action lest when
the present emergency was over the restrictions be found so deep-rooted
as to be impossible to remove.
The discussion was adjourned.
The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m. |
GATT Library | rt203rm7100 | Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.5/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rt203rm7100 | rt203rm7100_90270181.xml | GATT_140 | 332 | 2,216 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR. 5/Corr. 1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 26 September 1951
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 1
Mr. Stig Sahlin's (Sweden) statement should read as follows:
"Mr. Stig SAHLIN (Sweden) stated that his delegation was in principle
in favour of the establishment of a standing committee which could serve
a useful purpose by contributing to the efficient administration of the
Agreement. However, like the representative of the United Kingdom, he
thought a thorough study of the question was desirable. Effective arrange-
ments should be made to cope with questions arising between sessions and
to provide the secretariat with a body which it could consult. His
delegation was prepared to discuss any other solutions directed to the
same end. The system of ad hoc committees had its difficulties."
Page 4, paragraph 3 (Mr. Dharma Vira (India))
The last sentence should read as follows:
"With regard to the composition of a standing committee., his delegation
saw no reason to depart from the principles laid down in Annexure L of the
Havana Charter for filling permanent seats, at least for the first committee,
These principles were unexceptionable and took into account geographical
considerations as well as the potential importance in international trade
of countries with large populations."
Page 4, last paragraph
The last sentence of Mr. Tauber's (Czechoslovakia) statement should read as
follows:
"From the practical point of view, he pointed out that points (i) to
(xi) of paragraph 10, with the exception of points (i) and (iii) of the
proposed terms of reference were concerned only with technical matters which
were the task of the Secretariat, To create a special organ would show a
certain dissatisfaction with the Secretariat. The content of points (i) and
(iii) went beyond the competence of the Secretariat and equally of the proposed
Committee, since the latter would then be empowered to take up, if not
decide, questions which concerned countries not members of the Cmmittee." |
GATT Library | gw131fs6582 | Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Tuesday, 3 April 1951 at 11.15 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 11, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/04/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.5 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gw131fs6582 | gw131fs6582_90270173.xml | GATT_140 | 693 | 4,529 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CPS/SR.5
TARIFFS AND TRADE 11 April 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE. ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PART IES
Special Session, 1951
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay,
on Tuesday, 3 April 1951 at 11.15 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. J. MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Questions concerning the Torquay
Protocol.
2. Proposed Negotiations between the
.United States and Cuba relating
to preferences (GATT/CPS/2).
3. Draft Press Release on the problem
of the disparity of European
tariffs (Torquay/26).
4.. Other Business.
1. Questions concerning the Torguay Protocol
Mr. GISLE (Sweden) explained that the Tariff Negotiations
Committee had decided to request the Contracting Parties to
approve certain changes in the Torquay Protocol and to adopt
a resolution on unfinished Article XXVIII negotiations. These
changes were explained in the report of the Legal Working
Party (document GATT/TN.2/43), which also contained a draft
resolution.
The changes to the Torquay Protocol were adopted.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) explained that certain changes had been
made in the Annex to the Resolution which was before the
meeting of the Tariff Negotiations Committee. He assumed that
the Annex was to be adopted as amended by the Tariff Negotiations
Committee, i.e., with the deletion of all the items from the
Cuban list except item 253 (b). GATT/CPS/SR. 5
page 2.
The CHAIRMAN confirmed this modification of the text of
the Resolution. The Contracting Parties would be voting on the
Resolution as thus modified.
The Resolution was adopted by a vote of 22 in favour,
none against.
2. Proposed Negotiations between the United States and Cuba
relating to Preference (GATT/CPS/2)
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) introduced the paper that had
been circulated by the U.S. Delegation and explained. the system
of preferences that existed between the two governments. He
wished to make it clear first that the proposed negotiations
would involve no changes to the most-favoured-nation treatment
nor any increases in the margins of preference, and secondly
that negotiations had not yet been undertaken.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Contracting Parties
approve the proposed negotiations between .the United States
and Cuba as set out in the document, and that the Executive
Secretary be instructed to circulate any proposed modifications
of either schedule to the contracting parties for approval.
This was Agreed.
3. Draft Press Release on the Problem of the Disparity of
European Tariffs (Torquay/26)
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY proposed certain changes in the
press release.
The press release was approved as so modified.
Other, Business
Mr. ROHAC (Czechoslovakia) recalled the reservation he
had made at the first meeting of the Session as to the
possibility of raising the question of the interpretation of
the relationship between Articles I and XXVIII. He wished to
place on record that Article I should be interpreted as
completely excluding an increase in margins of preference in the
schedule. The view of his delegation was that, where the most-
favoured-nation rate was raised as the result ofran Article
XXCVIII negotiation, the preferential rate must also be raised
to the extent necessary to retain the margin between the two
rats fixed at Geneva. In that sense he believed that
Article I applied to all negotiations, eventhose under
Article XXVIII. GATT/CPS/SR. 5
Page 3.
The CHAIRMAN said that this matter had been raised at
the first meeting of the Session. The Czechoslovak
representative had stated certain views on the interpretation
of two articles in the Agreement. It was for the Contracting
Parties to decide whether they wished this matter placed on
the Agenda for discussion at this time.
Mr. ROHAC said he did not wish to insist that this item
be placed on the Agenda, but only that his statement be
recorded in the summary record.
The CHAIRMAN said that this would be done.
Mr. STEYN (Union of South Africa) said that earlier in the
day the Tariff Negotiations Committee had met for the last
time and he was sure the participating countries would wish
to express their appreciation of the invaluable work done by
its acting Chairman, Mr. GISLE.
Mr. GISLE thanked Mr. STEYN and the Contracting Parties.
There being no other business, the CHAIRMAN declared
the Special Session closed.
The meeting closed at 12.30. |
GATT Library | gk199rh3841 | Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday 19 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 20, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 20/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR. 5 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gk199rh3841 | gk199rh3841_90270180.xml | GATT_140 | 3,664 | 22,959 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR. 5
TARIFFS AND TRADE 20 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Wednesday 19 Septerber 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects Discussed: 1. Continuing Administration of the Agreement
(continued).
2. Appointment of Working Party for International
Chamber of Commerce Resolutions.
1. Continuing Administration of Agreement (continued)
(GATT/CP.5/49 & SR. 25 GATT/GP.6/9, 13.& 17.)
Mr. STIG SAHLIN (Sweden) agreed. that a standing committee could serve a
Useful purpose by contributing to the efficient administration of the Agreements
However, while not agreeing with the arguments of the representative of the
United Kingdom, he thought a thorough study of the question was-desirable to
ensure that effective arrangements were made to cope with questions arising
between, sessions and to provide the secretariat with a body which it could
consult. His delegation was prepared to discuss any other solutions directed
to the same end. The system of ad hoc committees had its difficulties and he
did not think they constituted the proper machinery for attending to the
preparatory work of the sessions.
Mr. PRESS (New Zealand) did not wish to repeat the arguments of the
representatives of the United Kingdom and Ceylon to which his delegation
attached the greatest importance. He saw no reason why the efficient working
of the Contracting Parties was impaired by the absence of a standing committee,
The success of the Contracting Parties - one of the most informal of inter-
national bodies - was largely due to their ad hoc character. The Agreement
provided a set of rules for governments and a forum for the discussion of
problems and the ironing out of differences, and he did not see how a standing
committee fitted into this framework, So long as the agreement retained its
provisional character there was no need for such a body. Moreover, great
difficulties would arise for small countries which might be represented for
short periods but otherwise would have to be content to have their views
stated by others or wait for meetings of the Contracting Parties. The argu-
ment that countries would be free to send representatives at any time was
equivalent to saying that for each subject there would be an ad hoc working
party besides the staying committee. He also suggested that the standing
committee was liable to come under the influence of other permanent organizations
so that the Cortracting Parties risked losing their present independence
Mr, DI NOLA (Italy) found there was little to say after so many arguments
d been put forward. He would, however, call attention to the significant change
in the atmosphere from that which had prevailed at Torquay. Proposals sometimes GATT/CP.6/SR. 5
Page 2.
have an poal at firap . a-'*' which '':7 '.' so after a through examination, More-
ever, at Terquay most del ". .a.. 1 ingl dang his own, thought that between the two
sessions the Agreement would reach a greater measure or stability. Consequently
what had then seemed appropriate was now looked upon with less enthusiasm. If a
standing committee were a purely technical body with no powers of decision -
merely appointed to pave the way for the decisions of the Contracting Parties -
it would not have the efficiency, competence and authority of an ad hoc committee,
and when problems of interest to all contracting parties arose a larger number
of countries should be represented. Situations right arise in which the proposed
committee would merely duplicate the work of the Contracting Parties.
Their choice was between giving to a standing committee powers of decision
and setting up a body which would be less efficient than ad hoc working parties.
He referred also to the difficulties of the composition of such a body, a matter
which caused great concern to the less-important trading countries who would
suffer from a measure of discrimination which did not exist at present. It was
true that these countries would be able to express their views fully at meetings
of the Contracting Parties, but experience had shown how difficult it was to
influence decisions at that stage. Particularly so in this case as reports would
already have the support of the members of the _ . g committee. He did not
think that the possibility of sending observers-provided sufficient guarantees.
As for the suggestion that a standing committee could engage in studies, examina-
tion of disputes, and other activities leading to decisions of the Contracting
Parties, he thought such studies could be entrusted to the secretariat. The
Contracting Parties were in need rather of a secretariat enjoying the necessary
stability for the performance of its work at its best.
Reverting to the question of the disadvantageous position of countries not
enjoying a permanent seat on a standing committee, he suggested that if a committee
were to be set up, the practice of the International Monetary Fund should be studied
despite its obvious disadvantages. In conclusion he said that the difficulties of
the secretariat between sessions could not be denied and his delegation would be
prepared to examine any proposals which aimed at facilitating the secretariat's
task..
Mr. AZIZ AHMED (Pakistan) thought that a discussion of this nature was not
appropriate at the present time. He wished however to emphasise that if a standing
committee were set up great attention would have to be given to its composition
so as to ensure that all types of economies were equally represented. Nevertheless,
in present circumstances, he thought the best course was to defer the problem,
as had been suggested by the Norwegian representatives.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) wished to support the argument of the representatives
of the United Kingdom and Italy. He thought it would be more profitable to broaden
the functions of the Secretariat, to institute ad hoc committees and to revise
the rules of e proedure. The time was not ripe and the creation of a standing
committee would give the Agreement a greater permanence than it actually had. The
element of uncertainty in the present situation and the need for a review of the
contents of the Agreement suggested that the matter should be deferred. GATT/CP 6/SR.5
Page 3.
Mr. LECUYER (France) recalled that his delegation had shown great interest in
the proposal when it was first discussed at Torquay and had thought that the Report
which was the outcome of their discussions would serve as a basis for setting up a
standing committee. He did not deny the importance of the arguments of the United
Kingdom representative, but after hearing all the opinions which had been expressed
his delegation concluded that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Account
would have to be taken of the criticisms of the representatives of Greece, Italy
and Pakistan, but he saw no reason for rejecting the proposal because of any
uncertainty about the future of the Agreement. He thought they could most appro-
priately show their confidence in the Agreement by setting up the machinery which
would ensure the continuity of its work.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEEIN (Netherlands) said he was concerned to find a solution
to what might become one of the main problems of the Agreement: twice every year
for six weeks governments had to forego at home the services of important officials
who were sent to represent then in the Contracting Parties. The length of the
sessions was entirely attributable to the absence of adequate machinery. They
had a secretariat which was too small and existed on an uncertain basis and it was
unreasonable to expect from this small group a more thorough preparation of
meetings. For most governments the men who framed commercial policy could not be
spared for the meetings and a time might come when even the present representatives
would not be able to attend the sessions. They must aim at a solution which would
lead to shorter sessions and any proposal in this direction would hate his support,
He disagreed with the representative of the United Kingdom that they would be
setting up a new international body, Their experience with intersessional working
parties was not a happy one. Such bodies had a tendency to leave matters pending
for the Contracting Parties to solve. It was his opinion that a standing committee
might provide the solution they were looking for in that all the work it would
do towards the preparation of sessions would shorten the meetings, He also thought
there was no reason why the standing committee should not set up working parties
if such were necessary. Their main problem was to shorten the sessions and to
achieve this purpose three conditions had to be fulfilled: viz. the Secretariat
should be strengthened so that it could undertake broader tasks; some means should
be found to give the Secretariat more guidance; and the Contracting Parties should
be able to make further changes if it were found that the purpose of shortening
the sessions were not achieved, -
In conclusion Mr, Van Blankcenstein asserted that his support for the proposal
to establish a standing committee arose out of the desire of his Government to
strengthen the General Agreement.
Mr. PEREZ CISNEROS (Cuba) , in the belief that the exist once of a standing
committee would ensure a more efficient administration of the Agreement, expressed
his Government s support in principle .for the Report of the Working Party. Certain
aspects of the proposal required further detailed discussion and for this reason
he would only give his general approval. Whilst agreeing with the importance of
the remarks made by the representative of the United Kingdom he did not think that
ad hoc committees would meet their requirements especially when urgent matters
arose between sessions. His delegation assumed that the standing committee would
limit its activities to the task of preparing sessions and would not be entitled GATT/CP.6/SR. 5
Page 4
to take decisions. He suggested a membership of 12 or 15 , and as to the
composition, the geographical location and the economic development of
countries should be the criteria.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) said that previous speakers had failed to
convince him of the need for a standing committee. He was in full
agreement with the representatives of the United Kingdon, Italy, New
Zealand, Ceylon and Pakistan that the time was not yet ripe for the
creation of a standing committee: the tine for discussion of the proposal
to set up a standing committee would come when the Contracting Parties
decided to revise the Agreement. He appreciated the desirability of
devising means of meeting present requirements and for that reason he
favoured the suggestion of the representative of the Netherlands for the
strengthening of the secretariat.
In case a working party wore set up for further examination of the
proposals he would suggest that the terms of reference as set out in the
report of Working Party "L" were too broad. Points (i) and (iii) of the
proposed terms of reference would in fact enable the standing committee
to engage in consultations either on its own initiative or on the
proposal of a contracting party. This would give it the powers of an
executive board, whereas its field should be restricted to matters specifi-
cally referred to it by the Contracting Parties. With regard to the
opposition of a standing committee, the unexcep4bt~ale principles b1tid
down by the Havana Charter, based on economic importance with particular
regard to each country's share in international trade, types of economies
and degrees of economic development, should be followed.
Mr. BOTHA (South Africa) recalled that at the Fifth Session his
delegation had firmly opposed the proposal and, after giving further
thought to the matter, his Government did not now see any reason for changing
that view. He did not share the optinism of the representative of the
Netherlands who expected a saving of man-power to result from the work of
a standing committee; the contrary was nearer the truth, in particular
for the more remote countries which would have to send delegates if they
wanted their interests to be fully protected.
Mr. HAGEMANN (Germany), speaking as the representative of a country
which was about to become a contracting party, expressed his agreement
with the views of the representatives of the United States, France and
the Netherlands, that a standing committee, by its preparatory works would
help to shorten the duration of the sessions. They would welcome any
suggestion with this aim.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said that his delegation at Torquay
opposed the creation of a standing committee for formal and practical
reasons. From the formal point of view, he shared the opinion of some
speakers that the Contracting Parties could not be treated as an
organisation. He regretted that this fact had not been made clear enough
in the Report, because if an analysis of the principles of the Agreement
had been made it would have been obvious that the Contracting Parties had
no basis for the creation of a standing committee. From the practical GATT/CP. 6/SR. 5
Page 5
point of views he pointed out that points (i) to (xi) of the proposed terms
of reference wore concerned only with technical matters which were really
the task of a secretariat.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the discussion, found that there was an
almost equal division of opinion for and against the proposal. He also
had the impression that many representatives had not yet completely made
up their minds, but it was clear that the consensus faveured some machinery
which would provide for the more efficient administ on of the Agreement.
The great interest shown by all delegations and the :..vious need for a
further probing of the question suggested, in his opinion, its examination
by a working party.
M. SUETENS (Belgium) agreed that a working party should be set up but
thought it would be difficult to separate the present question from those
discussed on the previous day. They were concerned with the problem of
strenghening the authority of the Agreement which, he noted with great
pleasure, had so greatly increased in importance particularly since it had
become known that the creation of the International Trade Organization
was very doubtful. He proposed therefore that if a working party were
set up it should examine the question as a whole in the light of the
discussion in the present and the previous meetings.
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) hoped that they would not reverse the
decision taken on the previous day that delegates should reflect further
on the proposals for the provision of secretariat and conference services
and resume the discussion of this subject. Whilst his delegation would
collaborate without prejudice to their position on this question, in the
activities of a working party, he felt that in view of the great division
of opinion and the number of points that had been raised, it would be
better to defer the matter to the next session.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) considered that the interest aroused by this
item certainly warranted the examination by a working party, but agreed
with the previous speaker that the discussion on the financial questions
should be continued.
Mr. AZIZ AHMED (Pakistan) informed the Chairman that he had no
instructions from his government and that if the question were referred
to a working party to report to the present Session, his delegation would
not be able to take part. He supported the proposal to defer the question
of a standing committee to the next session.
Mr. THORP (United States) suggested the creation of a working party
with broad terns of reference so that the numerous suggestions, including
that of increasing the responsibilities of the secretariat could be
thoroughly examined. There was nothing to prevent the working party, if it
found that, no progress could be made, to recommend deferment to the next
session.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that in view of Mr. Thorp's remarks it
was probably unneessary for him to say what he had intended. He did, GATT/CP. 6/SR. 5
Page 6
however, wish to place on record, as one who was at least partially
responsible for the administration of the Agreement, that even if it were
decided not to pursue the discussion on a standing committee there
remained revertheless important.points to settle concerning the continuing
administration of the General Agreenent. If the question of a standing
committee had not been on the Agenda, he would have found it necessary
to make a report on some of the problems which he expected would cone up
in the near future, He thought it would be possible to discuss these
questions in a working party with broad terms of reference. He suggested
therefore that the question be either submitted to the consideration of a
working party or that a report be submitted by him on administrative
questions which were likely to arise in the future administration of the
Agreement as a special item on the Agenda.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) agreed to the setting up of a working party.
This solution would not prevent the Contracting Parties, if they thought
fit, from deferring the question to a later session. The other questions
discussed at previous meetings should be thought over as decided, and then
discussed again in the Contracting. Parties. It was for a later discussion
to determine whether that natter should also be submitted for consideration
by the working party.
The Contracting Partios agreed to maintain their decision of the
previous day and to set up a working party which would, for the time being,
be only concerned with the question of a standing committee. They would
decide in the subsequent discussion what they would do with regard to
the financial question.
2. Appointment of a Working Party for lnternational Chamber of Commere
Following upon the decision of the previous day, the Contracting
Parties at to set up a working party with the. following terms of
reference and the following composition:
Terms of reference
To examine the resolutions and proposals referred to the Contracting
Parties by the International Chamber of Commerce on the simplification
of documentary requirements, consular invoices and visas and the
customs treatment of samples and advertising material, and to submit
recommendations thereon.
Chairman: Mr. R. Ashford (Nuited Kingdom)
Brazil Italy Sweden
France Netherlands United Kingdom
Greece New Zealand United States
India Pakistan GATT/CP. 6/SR. 5
Page 7
The CHAlRMAN said that the Working Party would have the benefit of tech-
nical advice from an expert of the European Customs Union Study Group who
could attend meetings in the capacity of consultant, and he suggested that the
International Chamber of Commerce might be invited to send an expert to
serve in the same capacity. Although there was no provision in the Rules of
procedure for the representation of non-governmental organizations he
thought it would be useful for the Contracting Parties to have the
technical assistance of the International Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. PRESS (New Zealand) thought it would not be proper for the
International Chamber of Commerce to participate, that Contracting Parties
would discuss matters of a confidential nature and non-governmental bodies
should not be present.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY thought that the representative of New Zealand
had raised a real point of difficulty and hoped that it would at some time
be possible to examine the whole question of relations with non-governmental
organizations. There was nevertheless merit in not affronting an
organization which had been studying these questions for twenty-five years,
and whose technical experience night be of value. He suggested that the
working party be authorised to consult an expert from the International
Chamber of Commerce when if they thought it proper, without the Chamber
participating directly in the meetings. He thought this solution would be
acceptable to the Chamber.
Mr. AZIZ AHMED (Pakistan) supported the suggestion of the Executive
Secretary. While agreeing with the representative of New Zealand, he
thought that if the Executive Secretary's suggestion were accepted, the
International Chamber of Commerce could be invited to send an expert at
the proper moment, for instance when the report had reached the draft stages
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) sympathized with the difficulties of the
Executive Secretary and said he did not wish to be discourteous to the
International Chamber of Commerce. But he agreed with the representative
of New Zealand that the presence of their experts might be embarrassing
and he was not sure that the embarrassment might not become greater if
the matter were left to the decision of the Chairman of the Working Party.
This was particularly the case if the proposal of Mr. Aziz Ahmed were
adopted that the experts be invited when the report was already drafted.
He suggested that this was a matter which it was not fair to leave to the
Working Party to settle.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said he could see the limitations exposed by
Mr. Phillips but he did not think they were evading the problem by refusing
to allow the International Chamber of Commerce to participate. Common
sense and reasonableness on both sides should be able to devise an
acceptable solution which would ensure that the discretion of the Working
Party was reasonably used.
Mr. BOTHA (Union of South Africa) also felt that, as a non-governmental
organization and as an interested party, the International Chamber of
Commerce should not participate in their discussion, but he thought there GATT/CP. 6/SR. 5
Page 8
would be no difficulty in asking there to state their case to the Working
Party.
Mr. THORP (United States) considered it would be unfortunate if the
Contracting Parties took action to debar the International Chamber of
Commerce from attendance. If no action were taken in the absence of rules
pertaining thereto, the Working Party could ask the International Chamber
of Commerce to give evidence if they should consider this desirable. He
proposed that nothing be said in the terns of reference.
The proposal of the representative of the United States was acceped.
The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.
_ -*
?' r
?l !
! ' |
GATT Library | px649wb8923 | Summary Record of the First Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/04/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.1./Corr.1 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/px649wb8923 | px649wb8923_90270167.xml | GATT_140 | 60 | 396 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTlES
,C.;0'-jr CTi.-N P.-L-CIES
Special Session, 1951
O
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST MEETING
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CPS/ SR. 1. /Corr. 1.
5 April 1951
ENGLISH ONLY
In the last sentence of Mr. van. BLANKENSTEIN's statement, delete the
words "only the request" and substitute "wanted only to make it clear
that they assumed". |
GATT Library | zc160py9437 | Summary Record of the First Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 25, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.1/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zc160py9437 | zc160py9437_90270175.xml | GATT_140 | 248 | 1,742 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIES GATT/CP.6/ SR. 1/Corr. 1
25 September 1951
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIE
Sixth Session.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST MEETING
Corrigendum
The second paragraph should read:
"Mr. THORP stated that the representative of the Czechoslovak Goverment
had argued that the United States position on the matter was entirely political.
He assured the Contracting Parties that, in presenting the problem to the
the United States delegation did not propose to involve the members in the
consideration of the substance of any political issue, nor would they suggest
any political action. Rather, it will simply be argued that, as far as the
two Governments were concerned, an extraordinary situation existed with
consequences reaching into the area of the General Agreement"
COMPTE RENDU DE LA PREMIERE SEANCE
Page 4, point 21
Le premier alinéa doit se lire comme suit:
"M. THORP relève que le représentant du gouvernement tchécoslovaque a fait
valoir que les Etats-Unis se placent en cette matière sur un terrain exclusivement
politique. Or, il peut donner aux Parties Contractantes l'assurance qu'en leur
soumettant ce problèm, la délégation des Etats-Unis n'a pas l'intention de les
entrainer dans un examen de fond d'aucune question politique et qu'elle ne leur
proposera de prendre aucune measure de cet ordre. Elle se bornera à soutenir sim-
plement qutil existe entre les deux gouvernements intéressés une situation excep-
tionnelle qui a des répercussions dans le romaine de l'Accord général." |
GATT Library | sh378rz0215 | Summary Record of the First Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Thursday, 29 March, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/03/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.1 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sh378rz0215 | sh378rz0215_90270166.xml | GATT_140 | 1,719 | 10,999 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B GATT/CPS/SR.1
29 March 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Special Session. 1951
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST MEETING
on Thursday, 29 March, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. J. MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Election of Chairman.
2. Election of Vice-Chairman
3. Adoption of the Agenda.
4. Item 5. Statement by the Belgian and
Netherlands representatives on the possible
effects of the Schumann Plan on certain iron
and steel items in Schedule II (Benelux).
1. Election of Chairman
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ssid that the first item on the
Agenda was the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. In accordance
with Rule 10 of the Rules of Porcedure the terms of the present Chairman
and Vice-Chairman, who were elected at the Fourth Session, had expired.
He suggested that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be elected for
the period specified in Rule 10.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY explained that he had discussed the th
stion of:officerwirs some of the delegations and had circulated a te'
oote ds of delegations asking for nominations. icvzral delegationsat ohs,
ing Australiatrannelux, Canada, France, 'U-c nited the UKingdom and the. t
tates te at proposed Mr. Melander (Norway). He therefore considered< t c.i ccn
nomination before the Contcation before thend to in conracting Parties a-
avoitca.yother n'inatcs
any other her nominatithe ons .ECUTIVE SECRYnthe :0LIV2 SOR;T'
der unanimously emously elected, an Mr. Melander then took the anl.er t .
ChAir.
ed the he Cntracting Pars for his election in Po.rtLteA for i
uld do hgis best to serve tem in his new office, althoughe th1m In his 2c-,
sible to live up to tb noulive up to the reputation of his pp decessor.n ihis >reesss
contributed so much to the success of the Contracting the Sl.CeuS : the O
Charmanship since 1947, had found ind it.:nshi. since l147 1ia~. -eit
ask. He thnscczsHe thought the CPartiesontracting.azk.esK'c t'ih :u:lt t
ecretary to cretary to convey to Mr. Wilgresir c! ,,- c'n;. to L.r
e past and their ask their hope to see him in thezt . thczir hose tc, the
ation.ion.re as head of t~C n ul;U~
2. Election cVice-C ..X.;:
KKIN, of Auitralia.a.>>0,N-! lx.'AOEili, of'u;rs~i:
nation, the CHAIRMAN declared .inr..t, the CGWIJMAN cld reldl that
ly. TMT.Kl\T wl.s v le urnim:usv.a
epresentativeandd ,th. Inia.1 rggrusentative an' the Contractin, GATT/CPS/SR.1
Page 2
3. Adoption of the Agenda
The CHAIRMAN referred to the provisional Agenda, circulated as
document GATT/CP/102. In addition, the Czechoslovak Delegation had cir-
culated a proposed addition to the Agenda under the symbol GATT/CPS/1.
~~~~~~~~~~~n'-, u.e GY2;
ed.)T incluza:'r. Cci. it,:I 1 2 ana 3 '3as prve
rquay Protocol.4 - 11, 4 Q Utic; c - Conrnii, thl Torquatytoc cl.
the textUrYR ( ncx) that somi. rectil'icaticns to the to
ttee and would n uoirn by thc T-riff 7%gotiaticns Cormittee and wruJneed
thn_ *a-roval of the Cent'actii 'rtis. ut there was also the much more
e XXVIII which would n ctf then ct i L.mns u'n-r Article XVIII which not
ec, finished, by the cl-sc; -of `1-vh; T -r!r.ju-ay H1 proposed that this
would beffieult leal :rcbll .: r'.uwatle. now, as it wounot bc possible to
;;.so - ftcr si ¢natut.
The =3wiLMUTIVE SECRTAP said that he had intn;eod to bring this
matt been in c the Ccntraotin<Parties. The Secretariat had_!, boin consult-
ticle XXVIII appearedeatinls ahose n-o tiations un'cr article VhII anpeace
unlikely to fingsh beoore the close of thl Conference, and certain surgesticns
had boen proae i for ca,,nsid;rati-rn by the Le2.Working Party. Th cContracting
PartiesWorking hen ta:keup any proposals evolved by the Legal Viclrlin Party
before the cl-se of this s sio.
The C~IATh-J~ sail than<t this pciwould be include, under item 4.
C)e Proposal1 1;,,, CZechcslovrk De1e:,rati for tho inclusion
:-,I af 22C itco.. in th( (G.'T/GPS/i).
e proposalL04^:C OZLcho%_1 -valki thiqu,-ht the reasons 'or tl -rcposal
hed only r from the %-.ri;. chnt i'li ha been circular.te-d. Hcto
ews and ize that h-is alle.:t:21 A'Z2 riouestinan exchan-e of vieL- - not a
-!Ccai Si n ocr ju;1,.
'r. VJ -.L;CTSTiEII (iT~th-wrlolT) conI-sider thny di-dsion
ng party ;hicl ., CCifr> the 1< i'l^turo; of' a1 contracting-, -,arty
only instance of .:.;:,'' t C4ntractic ?; P.rtics. The ;nly instcnlc this
before the Brazilian ?artie. - th ic n a bill bfore;,f t Brazn.n
gation itself.d..' lb~n at thl_ r :ju.st -'~: B1-14 I~rt~zi'iaritself. This
was not thcS cas, ,r,
Parties LC sail tvtw iiz it ; uS up' t': the C . ontra.ctinto
he could not agree tha !. -,tter sh-ui.: be dizcuszi` !r not, hFe c-u1. nthat
important implications.f ;lc.- 1Th iii 1in question hac- important imi.1itio1ns
uld be usefterpoe-t-ati ! :' thej General A^re ct, Gi it wruld. be-J useul f>r the
ting d StaS : be :cir)' '.w.r: :'i' tth- dni i ,ns of thels cparties before
the till be(c.a.-!1
ive.*. ?5IS. _i (C'^.a-.a) a-;rd '..ith the Neith-esrlan`s repr-ntative.
proposedt evcn e har :fui "-r tlie C-ntractingv Partis t, - sicuss the- pire
lpressioni-.il of any .rtdeul-.x c(ntI- ctin" ,;thereby iving the im nrussi
osedinterfercnce. ir;I .,etic ncerXis. IPurhorm.veven were th, pro;, s
ctingatit;i:n made'-,'t lax;, it vwI.al t. still fo an.m ropriate f: ntra*Ctin-
Parties to consider it Lxc6 t in the ccntoxt qf . breach !f tht Gencral Agreeent.
M.1r. iOI.-C p!iilte- .uL certain parts of the Agreemnt stipulated
tha internal legislati :; :u1 c`:nTOri1 to the; £reement.n -rarticulrz, t
asr. 6 c leriy i - picit in thel iiee?].'llat that le> tariffs should he in
crnformity with it. T.; cruulci notherefore, agree that it was iiaipro--.r
discuss any internal l; is1 ti on GATT/CPS/SR.1
page 3
The CHAIRMAN said that the proposal was to include an item in-
volving an exchange of views in general terms and not relating to any
specific matter arising from the Agreement. This was a departure from
the usual procedure of dealing with actual alleged breaches of the Agreement
and he asked, whether there was any support for Chechoslovak proposal.
After a vote of eleven against and none in favour, he ruled against its
inclusion on the Agenda.
d ) Item 6 -Other business.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) requested opportunity to make a statement
on certain obligations which might arise for the Benelux countries under the
Schumann Plan. Article 15 of the Schumarn Plan provided that the Benelux
countries might be obliged to raise the duties on some iron and steel products,
some of which were included in the schedules annexed to the General Agreement,
by two points( 2 per cent). The Schumann Plan itself would come before the
Contracting Parties in order that the necessary waivers of relevant GATT
obligations might be obtained. It was therefore not intended to go into the
substances of the Schumann Plan at this session, but merely to give notice of
the possible repercussions on the Benelux tariff.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) supported this request.
The CHAIRMAN said that this would be added to the Agenda.
Mr. ROMAC (Czechoslovakia) wished to reserve the possibility of
asking, for a discussion on the relationship between Articles I and XXVIII
with reference to margins of preference. After a request for clarification
he explained that during certain negotiations an uncertainty had arisen on
the interpretation of Article I. In the course of certain negotiations in
Torquay the possibility had arisen that a modification negotiated under
Article XXVIII might have the effect of increasing a margin of preference
in excess of the level permitted under Article I. The view of the Czecho-
slovak Delegation was that such a result would be permissible in view of
the clear provisions of Article I. On the other side it was maintained that
Article XXVIII was overriding. There was, however, the possibility that the
negotiations would be concluded without the need for recourse to the Contracting
Parties for an interpretation.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that if a discussion of became necessary,
the Czechoslovak Delegation should prepare a paper and the Contracting Parties
could then decide.
The Agenda was adopted.
4. Item 5 - Statement by the Belgian and Netherlands representatives on the
possible effects of the Schumann Plan on certain iron and steel items in
Schedule II (Benelux).
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Benelux statement be considered.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) explained that the Schumann Plan provided for
an equalising of the tariffs for iron and steel products by the member countries.
Most countries had a higher tariff than Benelux, which they would be obliged to
lower. On the other hand, Benelux might obliged to raise their tariff on
these items slightly. Only a few iron and steel products were included in the
Geneva and Annecy schdules as most of these items were not negotiated. If the
Benelux countries signed the Declaration and the Torquay Protocol without drawing
attention to this situation, ig might be argued that having rebound their
Schedules they were debarred for three years from taking the necessary actionssary a-ction
their particular obligations under the Schuman Plan.u r thel' Sch Plan GATT/CPS/SR.1
Page 4
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) agreed with the statement of
the Belgian representative and wished to add certain details. Under para-
graph XX of the Schumann Plan Convention, which had just been initialled, the
Schumann Plan would have to be submitted to the Contracting Parties for their
approval. The Convention also contained Article XV which committed Benelux,
during, the interim period, to take measures to prevent the entry of steel
through the low-tariff area of Benelux into the higher-tariff countries before
these countries had had time to lower their own tariffs. This would be done
mainly by the application of tariff quotas. The Benelux countries had also
undertaken to increase their duties if necessary by 2 per cent., although this
might not occur for several years. Benelux was not therefore making a spe-
cific reservation but only the request that when the Schumann Plan was finally
approved by the Contracting Parties, this approval would also imply approval
of any action necessary under Article XV of the Schumann Plaln which affected
Benelux tariff commitments under the General Agreement.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Contracting Parties would take note of
these statements, which would be circulated in writing, and await the Schumann
Plan proposal in order to consider the effects on the General Agreement.
This item was therefore disposed of.
The meeting adjourned at 4.40 p.m.,
X i__ |
GATT Library | vx830bd5153 | Summary Record of the First Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Monday 17 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 18, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vx830bd5153 | vx830bd5153_90270174.xml | GATT_140 | 2,151 | 14,098 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.6/SR.l
18 September 1951
ORIGINAL: EMGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations Geneva
on Monday 17 September 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MEIANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Opening of Meeting
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Informal Guidance for the Press
4. Attendance of Observers
1. Opening of the Meeting
The Chairman, in opening the meeting, emphasized the growing importance
of the Contracting Parties as the only inter-governmental body competent to deal
with questions of commercial policy, particularly since the indefinite postponement
of the establishment of the ITO. In the past, the Contracting Parties had be on
chiefly concerned with tariff questions. Other barriers to trade dealt with in
the Agreement would now take an equal place in their deliberations.
The Chairman welcomed Germany and Peru who would shortly become contracting
parties. He also welcomed the Ministers of Commerce from Canada and France, the
President of the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom and the Assistant Secretary
of State of the United States, and hoped that it would become a standard practice
for Ministers of Trade and Commerce to be present for a few days at the beginning
of one session of the Contracting Parties each year.
The full text of the Chairman's speech is reproduced in Press Release GATT/31.
Mr. HOWE (Canada) emphasized the usefulness of the General Agreement and the
scope of the work accomplished by the Contracting Parties. In his view the Torquay
negotiations had been one of the major accomplishments of the Contracting Parties,
Mr. HOWE stressed the importance of the ultimate objectives of the Agreement - to
reduce the obstacles to trade - and referred to the danger inherent in the use of
import controls which, unless constantly reviewed and removed as soon as possible,
tended to become established as permanent means of protection. This was an
important session of the Contracting Parties., particularly because of the attention
that was to be devoted to arranging for the permanent administration of the
Agreement,. Canada was prepared to support all measures which would strengthen
the Agreement and help to maintain the substance of its accomplishments.
The full text of Mr. Howe's speech is reproduced in Press Release GATT/32. GATT/CP .6/SR.1
Page 2
Mr. THORE. (United States of America) agreed with the Chairan that it
would be of Value for the most senior trade policy officials of governments
to use the sessions of the Contracting Parties as a meeting place The
General Agreement had provided a new element in international relations. It
had already dealt with tariffs; it was now dealing with other types of trade
barrier and it provide a long needed international forum for the settlement
of disputes on international trade in accordance with agreed rules and in a
spirit of understanding. The fundamental difficulties arose front the com.-
plicated nature of international economic relations and particularly from the
interlocking of the commercial and financial aspects. Great progress had
been made in the United States balance--of-payments situation towards the rest
of the world, and if the problem. was not yet solved there was general
agreement in many different international forums that the ultimate elimination
of payment and exchange restrictions was the objections. Mr. Thorp empha-
sised the importance of keeping these ultimate objectives clearly in mind.
His gcvernment attached, great importance to the consideration at this session
of the future administration of the Agreement and of procedures for carrying
out new tariff negotiations.
The full text of Mr. THORP's speech is to be found in Press Release
GATT/34
2. Adoption of Agenda (GATT/CT.6/1/Rev.2)
The Provisional Agenda (GATT/CP .6/1/Rev.2) was examined item by item.
The inclusion of the following items on the Agenda for the Session was
accepted without discussion:
Item 1.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 8.
Iton 9.
Iten 10.
Item 11
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14
Item 15
Itemi 16.
Item 18.
Item 19.
Item 22.
Item 23.
Item 24.
Item 25.
Item 26.
Item 27.
Item 28.
Item 29.
Item 31.
Adoption of Agenda
Attendance of Observers
International Chamber of Commerce Resolutions
Balance-of-Payment Restrictions
IMF Membership and Special Exchange Agreements
Continuing Administration
Inclusion of Havana Articles 3, 4 and 6.
Article XX Time-Limit
Tariff Negotiations Arrangements
Unfinished. .Article XXVIII Negotiations
Status of Protocols and Schedules
Torquay Protocol
United Kingdom Schedules
Rectification of Schedules
Consolidation of Schedules
Report on Withdrawal of Concessions in Schedule XX
United Kingdom Purchase Tax
Brazilian Internal Taxes
South Africa-Southern Rhodesia Customs Union
Nicaragua-El Salvador FreeTrade Area
European Tariff Levels
Budget
Publication of Documents
Publication of Progress Report
Article XXIII Application relating to Schedule XX Withdrawals
South Africa-Gerrmy Tariff Negotiations
Other business GATT/CP. 6/SR 1
Page 3
Item 17. French West Atrica Duties
Dr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said he had no objection to the inclusion
of this item, but drew attention to the fact that no document had been
produced in explanation. Nor had a document been produced for Item 20.
The CHAIRMAN recalled that items had sometimes been accepted for the
Agenda at previous meetings although explanatory documents were not ready for
distribution until after the opening of the meeting.
The inclusion of Item 17 was adopted.
Item 20. Belgian Tax
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) proposed the deletion of the words tffenting
Norwegian exports" since this item was also of interest to.Denmark
M. SUETENS (belgium) said he would not oppose the inclusion of the item
but requested a paper from the two delegations.
The CHAIRMAN, in reply to a remark of Mr. AHED (Pakistan), asked that
documents for items 17 and 20 be submitted as soon as possible.
The inclusion of Item 20 was adopted
Item 21. United States-.Czechoslovakia: Termination of Obligations
(GATT/CP .6/5)
Dr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said that the argument contained in the
document submitted by the United States (GATT/CP.6/5) on this item was
based entirely on political grounds; Article 86, paragraph 3 of the Havana
Charter ruled out political matters and therefore the item was not a proper
one for discussion by the Contracting Parties. He proposed its elimination
from the Agenda,
Mr. THORP (Uited States), although not denying that there were political
issues between the United States and Czechoslovakia, explained that his
Government intended to discuss this item solely on economic grounds, without
reference to political issues. The matter had arisen out of extraordinary
action with consequences which reached into the area of the Agreement and was
therefore properly placed before the Contracting Paities.
The CHAIRMAN referred to Artlcle XXV: 5(a) whose wording,"exeptional cir-
cumstances not elsewhere provided for in the Agreement", clearly envisaged
possibility of such problems. He would, therefore, rule that the item was a
proper one for inclusion in the Agenda, In reply to Dr. Mhuber's remark that
the United States paper contained no reference to Article XXV., the Chairman
pointed out that it was, of curse, open to delegations to submit further
papers and it was to be expected that the United States intended to submit
a further paper on this item.
r ,
1, GATT/CP.6/SR.1
Page 4
Dr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) repeated his contention that the basic
document contained political allegations and was not suitable for discussion
by the Contracting Parties. He proposed that before a definite decision
were taken, the Secretariat submit a report on the question of principle.
The CHAIRMAN thought this was unnecessary. The United. States delegate
had said that the cage would be argued on economic grounds and this assurance
should be accepted. The Czechoslovak Delegate could raise the question
during the course of the debate if it were necessary.
There being no support for the Czechoslovak proposal, Item 21 was G
for inclusion in the Agenda.
Item 30 U.B. Import Restrictions on Dairy Products
Dr. Van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands), supported by Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON
(Denmark) and Mr. ISBISTER (Canada), proposed that this item be added to the
Agenda. Restrictions had recently been imposed by the U.S. Government and
the Netherlands Government had protested under Article XXIII.
Mr. THORP (United States) agreed that the item was suitable for discussion
by the Contracting Parties.
The inclusion of Item 30 was adopted
Item 31: Other Business .
Dr. TAUBER (Cechoslovakia) wished to reserve the possibility of placing
two further items on the Agenda, namely: 1) The cancellation by the United
States of licences for the export of goods to Czechoslovakia; and 2) the
denial of permission by the United-States for the return to Czechoslovakia
of merchandise which was not accepted by the customer in the United States,
whether or not it had been cleared through customs. His government had
approached the United States Government under Article XXIII and was still
awaiting a reply. He therefore only asked the Contracting Parties to note
the possibility that these questions might be raised at this session.
The CHAIRMAN said there could be no objection to this procedure.
Mr. BØRRESE (Norway) said that his Government might wish to raise a
question concerning a country which was not yet a contracting party.
The CHAIRMAN explained that it was open for any government to propose
further items during the meeting.
An Order of Business proposed by the Chairman was considered, and was
in the amended forn ad set out in Document Six/4. GATT/CP.6/SR.1
Page 5
3. Informdl Guidance for the Press
The CHAIRMAN referred to the draft informal guidance for press and radio
correspondernis which was before delegations and asked that corrections be
submitted to the Secretariat the following day.
4. The Attendance of Observers (GATT/CP.6/8)
The CHAIRMAN referred to the request by the European Customs Union Study
Group to send an observer to the Sixth Session., The request of the Study
Group involved three considerations: first, whether the Study Group, which
was interested in the International Chamber of Cornerce proposal concerning
customs treatment of samples and advertising material, could be represented
at the meetings which were considering this questions, secondly, what arrange-
ments could be made to secure the collaboration of the Study Group in any work
that the Contracting Parties might decide to undertake in connection with this
proposal; and, finally, whether it would be feasible to study arrangements
for working with the Study Group in connection with other points of common
interest. The Contracting parties were at the moment concerned only with the
first aspect.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETRY explained, in reply to a question by Dr. Tauber,
that the European Custors Union Study Group was an inter-governmental
organization composed of a group of European countries which had formed them-
selves into the group in order to study the problems involved in the possible
eventual conclusion of a Customs Union. In the course of their study they
had already drawn up proposals for a common tariff nomenclature and were now
beginning to consider other questions such as valuation for customs purposes
and to draw up conventions concerning therm, The relevance of their work
to the Agreement was therefore apparent.
Replying to a further question of Dr. Tauber's, the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
considered that the Study Group had certain definite characteristics of an
international organisation, for instance a basic document defining the aims
and objectives, a secretariat-general, a system of regular international
conferences to which governments acqredited representatives who made
recommendations which formed the basis of the wor of the Secretariat.
Dr. TA.UBER feared that he would have to abstain on the decision to invite
the Group, as he could not be sure fronm the Executive Secretary's description
whether the Group fell under the exact definition of Rule 9 of the Rules of
Procedure.
Mr. AHMED (Pakistan) said he did not oppose the attendance of the Study
Group, but was somewhat concern:'. at the sectionalisi- that might be involved
in inviting the Group to attend the meetings. The Contracting Parties
comprised many countries that were not European, and he wished to have the
assurance that all the work of the Study Group would be available to all
contracting parties, whether or not they were European. GATT/CP/6/SR.1
Page 6
The CHAIRMAN agreed that it was of interest to all the contracting
parties to know what was being, accomplished in various regions. The question
raised by the Delegate of Pakistan might be considered when the arrangements
for collaboration with the Group were discussed.
It was agreed, except for the abstention of Czechoslovakia, that the
European Customs Union Study Group should be invited to send observers to
the Sixth Session.
The CHAIRMAN explained that he had received a request front the Government
of Yugoslavia to be permitted to send observers to the Sixth Session.
Yugoslavia had been invited to be represented by an observer at the Fifth
Session, under Rule 9 of the Rules of Proceedure and he asked the Contracting
Parties whether they wished to extend the same invitation for this Session.
It was agreed that Yugoslavia should be invited to send an observer.
The meeting adjourned at 5.48 p.m.
__ .
E |
GATT Library | hf742dn8469 | Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 9, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hf742dn8469 | hf742dn8469_90270206.xml | GATT_140 | 534 | 3,455 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP. 6/SR 14/Corr. 2
9 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Pages 2 and 3
Mr. Thorp's statement should read as follows:
"Mr. THORP (United States) said he had listened to the charges and
incomplete explantions of the representative of Czechoslovakia to which he
would reply if he were prepared to take up the time of the Contracting
Parties. For example, he would explain in detail the statement made by
Secretary Acheson who had testified before Congress that certain action
proposed by the Congress would constitute a violation of existing international
obligations. He could point out that Congress had initially intended to
require the termination of certain trade agreements within ninety days; and
Secretary Acheson had called attention to the fact that certain agreements
require six months' notice for their termination. If the instructions to
the United States Government had remained in their original form a violation
of international obligations would have resulted, but as a result of
Mr. Acheson's testimony time legislation had been altered to read - "as soon
as practicable" and an that basis these trade agreements are in process of
terminating in accordance with the terms of the specific agreement. No-one
could claim that there was a violation of an agreement if it were terminated
in accordance with its terms. The representative of Czechoslovakia had also
referred to the refusal of passports to United States citizens as a means of
restricting commerce between the two countries. The measure to which refer-
ence was made had been taken last June for the reason that the United States
Government could no longer assure to its citizens the kind of protection in
Czechoslovakia which is implicit in the issuance of a passport.
"He had selected two cases at random to indicate the whole story
had not been told but he was prevented from giving a complete answer by the
logic of the declaration as well as his promise to the Contracting Parties
that he would not expect them to make a decision except on the one fact that
exceptional circumstances exist.
"He could rebut the assertions of the representative of Czechoslo-
vakia for the sake of the record of the meetings; he could use the time of the
Contracting Parties for the purpose of propaganda, but he was only concerned
that the Contracting Parties should recognise the definite existence f GATT/CP .6/SR 14/Corr. 2
Page 2.
of exceptional circumstances which nullified the benefits of the Agree-
ment. On this point he thought his arguments had best been proved by the
representative of Czechoslovakia himself. One had only to examine the
statements of the two delegations to see that the circumstances described
therein were most certainly exceptional. This was recognized in the first
two points of the proposed declaration and the remaining paragraphs followed
automatically. The debate had been long and much of it was not related to
the immediate consideration of the subject, and he suggested that, on the
strength of his own testimony and that of the delegate of Czechoslovakia,
the Contracting Parties should now be able to vote favourably on the
proposed declarations." |
GATT Library | yf200wf1239 | Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yf200wf1239 | yf200wf1239_90270204.xml | GATT_140 | 280 | 1,956 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEEMENT LIMITED B
GATT/CP .6/SR .14/Corr .1
ON TARIFFS AND 5 October 1951
ORIGlNAL:. ENGLISH
TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
The name of the second time should read "M.Philip".
In the second paragraph delete the third, fourth and fifth sentences of
Mr. Vargas Gomez's statement and substitute the following:
"The Delegation of Cuba firmly believes that the Contracting Parties have
no faculties nor competence whatsoever to study or pass judgement on the political
situation existing amongst States. But at the same time, our Delegation also
believes that the Contracting Parties do have authority to analyze and take decisions
on facts and situations of an economic character deriving from political circumstances
The General Agreement is not a political instrument. But it cannot overlook
entirely the effects of political facts upon the economic relations between countries.
Article XXI of the Agreement, which establishes the so called "security exceptions"
is a proof of this. It is also a demonstration that the Agreement recognizes the
principle that political life may affect and disturb intensively economic life;
and that the obligations under its provisions cannot prevail over the measures
required as a consequence of a difficult political situations."
Page 2
At the end of Mr. Vargas Gomez's statement add the following:
"Though the Cuban Delegation strongly feels that the Article applicable to
this case is the Article XXV-5-A of the General Agreement, the Cuban Delegation is
prepared to accept any other procedure which may be agreable to the majority of the
contracting parties, provided that such a procedure and the decisions that the
Contracting Parties might take in connection with it, do not constitute a precedent". |
GATT Library | vf919rr0502 | Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Thursday, 27 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 1, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.14 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vf919rr0502 | vf919rr0502_90270201.xml | GATT_140 | 3,692 | 23,780 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR.14
1 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Thursday, 27 September 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subject discussed: Termination of Obligations between the United States
and Czechoslovakia (continued).
Termination of Obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia
under the General Agreement (continued) (GATT/CP.6/5 & Adds. 1 & 2)
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) said they were greatly indebted to
Mr. Philipps for his analysis of the scope and applicability of the articles
of the Agreemoet which left very little to be said. His delegation had
followed carefully the statements of the United States and Czechoslovakia;
they regretted that relations had reached the present state, but thought
that nothing could be gained by failing to recognise the situation. The
draft declaration which provided for a reciprocal waiver of obligations
was, in his opinion, a proper solution.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) stated that the Contracting Parties were
confronted with a problem of a very complex nature which had political as
well as economic aspects. It was a characteristic of a difficult inter-
national situation that restrictions on exports should be applied and
intensified as the political situation deteriorated. While his delegation
believed that the Contracting Parties were not competent to pass judgment on a
political situation existing among states, it could not be denied that economic
measures feel within their sphere of competence. Nor could the Contracting
Parties overlook entirely the effects of political situations upon economic
relations between countries. Article XXIII of the Agreement was proof
of this; by its implicit recognition that political factors might acutely
disturb the development of trade. This was the main consideration for his
delegation in view of the fact that it was impossible in the face of certain
political situations to demand the fulfilment of obligations of a commercial
and economic nature. The state of affairs which existed between the two
countries determined the enforcement of measures which, although they might
in the circumstances be legitimate even within the framework of the
Agreement, in fact frustrated fundamental obligations such as those, for
example, of Article XI. His delegation therefore believed that the
Contracting Parties should accept the facts, which were: that the existence
of a difficult political situation between two contracting parties did not
allow the froe operation of the provisions of the General Agreement and GATT/CP.6/SR..4
Page 2
that such a difficult political situation actually existed between Czecho-
slovacia and the United States. It was not necessary to make an exhaustive
analysis of the facts to accept this latter point, The United States.
request was, in itself', proof thereof. Once these two essential concepts
had boon accepted, it followed that the Contracting Parties had the
necessary elements to take action under Article XXV:5(a) which foresaw
exceptionall circumstances not elsewhere provided for in the Agreement".
His delegation considered this would be the most acceptable solution
because it would be less prejudicial to the operation of the Agreement. It
would also be more desirable to suspend the obligations between the parties
than to have to deal in the future with frequent cases of non-fulfilment
by one or the other. It was not possible to conceive that nations.;which.
had found it impossible to hold even normal diplomatic relations could
maintain without serious disturbance the complex activity of cornmarcial
and economic interchange.
Mr. BENAZZO (Italy) said that, in the opinion of his delegation, the
discussion of. the previous two meetings provided the impression that the
Contracting Parties were not in a position to conciliato, as would have
been desirable, the two opposing points of view, His delegation could
therefore only express its profound regret with regard to the situation that
had arisen and with the enforcement of measures which may be considered very
serious, There did not seem to be any alternative, as had been pointed out
by the representatives of France and the United Kingdom, to the recognition.
of the facts as set out in the documents before them and in the discussions
which had taken place concerning the relations between the two contracting
parties in question. It was in this sense that the Italian delegation
would interpret and approve the declaration which had boon proposed. by the
United States delegation.
Mr. THORP (United States) said he had listened to the charges
and incomplete explanations of the representative of Czechoslovakia to
which he would reply if he were prepared to take up the time of the
Contracting Parties. It would be easy for him to explain the statement
made by Secretary Acheson who had testified before Congress that certain
action by the United States would constitute a violation of existing
international obligations. He could point out that Congress had initially
intended to dernand the tormination of certain agreements within ninety
days; and Secretry Achoson had called attention to certain treaties
requiring six months' notice for their termination. If the instructions
to the United States Government had remained in their original form a
violation of international obligations would have resulted, but as a result
of Mr. Acheson's testimony the delay had been altered to road - "as soon.
as practical". No-one could claim that there was a violation of an
agreement if it were terminated in accordance 'with its torms, The represen-
tative of Czechoslovakia had also referred to the refusal of passports to
United States citizens as a means of restricting commerce between the two
countries. The measure to which reference was made had been taken last
June for the reason that the United States Government could no longer assure
to its citizens the kind of protection in Czechoslovakia which is implicit
in the issue of a passport,
He had selected two cases at random but he was prevented from giving GATT/CP. 6/SR. 14
Page 3
a complete answer by his promise to the Contracting Parties to take up as
little of their time as possible and by the logic of the declaration which
did not ask the Contracting Parties to give judgment on tho whole question
but only on the fact that an exceptional situation had arisen.
He could rebut the assertions of the representative of Czechoslovakia
for the sakeof the record of the meetings; he could use the tine of the
Contracting Parties for the purpose of propaganda, but ho was only concerned
that the Contracting Parties should recognise the definite existence of
exceptional circumstances which nullified the benefits of the Agreement.
On this point he thought his arguments had best been proved by the repro-
sentative of Czechoslovakia himself. One had only to examine the statements
of the two delegations to see that the circumstances described therein were
most certainly exceptional. This was recognized in the first two points
of the proposed declaration and the remaining paragraphs followed auto-
matically. The debate had been long and much of it was not related to the
immediate consideration of the subject, and he suggested that, on the
strength of his own declaration and that of the delegate of Czechoslovakia,
a vote was now possible.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) in reply to Mr. Thorp, said that the
latter had only touched on part of the question. Even the insertion of
the clause "as soon as practical" in the Congressional decision did not
prevent the United States from taking illegal action in breaking its
obligations under the General Agreement. And as for the question of pass-
ports, he said he could show that American citizens who wanted to trade
with Czechoslovakia had been refused passports. On a point of form, he
wished to call attention to the fact that the word rmination " was used
in the title of the document before them, whereas the text spoke of
"suspension"; this divergence added to the general confusion.
The draft declaration asked the Contracting Parties to accept a
unilateral statement presented by the United States delegation on a
problem which they had not even had the opportunity of examining. This was
confirmed, in fact, by the United States themselves who in the third para-
graph of the draft declaration had inserted the clause "even though the
Contracting Parties may not, in such a case, be competent to appraise the
circumstances adduced". He had already proposed that the Contracting
Parties should declare their incompetence in the matter. In the light of
the statements of certain delegations, of Denmark in particular, and of
France, it seemed opportune to raise the question again. His country had
neither withdrawn tariff concessions front the United States nor most-
faoured-nation treatment and that it was the. United States which deprived
themselves of the benefits of the Agreement by forbidding exports to
Czechoslovakia.
With regard to the second paragraph of the declaration, to the
effect that the Czechoslovak Delegation "had declared that the Government
of the United States, through its actions, had nullified benefits which
should have accrued to Czechoslovakia under the General Agreement", he
wished to point out that his delegation had never made any such statement,
Up to the present Czechoslovak products benefited in the United States from
the tariff concessions incorporated in the General Agreement. These GATT/CP.6/SR.14.
Page 4
advantages still existed and it was the United States which wanted to abolish
them. If the United States wished to forego the advantages granted. by
Czechoslovakia .;' did not follow that they. could compel Czechoslovakia to
give up its rights. Moreover, the third paragraph of the draft declaration
admitted that the Contracting Partics were not competent to appraise the
circumstances, and yet asked the Contracting Parties to "take note", "declare"
and "affirm", that is to say take, a decision, on the strength of allegations
which had not been proven. The Contracting. Parties should not decide without
a preliminary investigation. and examination of evidence. In factor the
United States was asking the Contracting Parties to give legal sanction to
are illegal act. According to the general principles of law no-one could
'invoke his own fault to accuse his.victim, nor could anyone who was aware of
.his incompetence decide a case; . any decision taken in such circumstances
would . have no validity.
The Contracting Parties were also asked to declare that the two govern-
ments should be free to suspend, each with respect to the other, the
.obligations of the Agreement. In fact, his Government had never asked for
any exemption and had no intention of doing so.
Finally, Mr. Tauber referred to the final paragraph of the draft
declaration which was to constitute an affirmation by the Contracting Parties
that any measures taken by the United States or by Czechoslovakia would not
modify their obligations under the Agreement towards other contracting parties;
this, he submitted, would be contrary to. the provisions of the Agreement.
If tariff concessions exchanged by tho two.governments were suspended,. the
other contracting parties could not be assured. of the benefit which they drew
indirectly from these concessions by virtue of the most-favoured-nation clause.
He therefore wished to conclude that the draft submitted by the United States
had no relation to: the Agreement and that its authors had rocognised this
fact by not being able to find any article of the Agreement to support their
claim. Moreover, he reasserted that a .case could. not be decided by a body
which ignored its substance and which was not competent to judge.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) called attention to Article XVII; he thought it
would have to be decided whether the United States and Czechoslovakia,' which,
if the declaration were approved might be considered to have coased to be
contracting parties with respect to each other, could withdraw their con-
cessions under this article.
M. PHILIP (France) did not think Article XVXII was applicable; :.neither
country would case to be a contracting party.' The declaration would only
authorise them to suspend concessions, and if the situation between the two
countries should improve neither of them would have to accede again in order
to make the Agreement effective between them.
Mr. TAUMBER(Czechoslovakia) opposed.a suggestion .bythe chairnan that
a vote could' then be taken on the declaration; no decislon could be. taken
on the strength of a unilateral statement by the United States or on the
basis of an alleged statement by Czechoslovakia which had never been made;
moreover, the question raised by the representative of Belgium should be
discussed, and he could not soe how they. could vote .on a declaration which `em
bodied no reference to an article of the Agreement: GATT/CP.6/SR. 14
Page 5
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the powers of the Contracting Parties to
take decisions derived from paragraph 1 of Article XXV which provided for
joint action by the Contracting Parties. Decisions could take different
forms: several declarations approved at the Third Session had also contained
no reference to an article of the Agreement.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) road the first lines of Article XXV:l which
requires meetings of the contracting parties from time to time "for the
purpose of giving effect to those provisions of this Agreement which involve
joint action".
M. PHILIP (France), pointing out that Mr. Tauber had only quoted half of
the first paragraph of Article XXV, read the remainder of the paragraph which called for
meetings of the contracting parties "with a view to facilitating the operation
and furthering the objectives of this Agreement". He was surprised to note
the change of attitude of the representative of Czechoslovakia who at the
previous meeting had made a number of accusations against the United States,
including the violation of all agreements, but now said that Czechoslovakia
was enjoying the advantages of the agreement and wanted ther continued. With
the aim of conciliating the opposing views he suggested an amendment to the
second paragraph of the declaration which he would propose if it would assist
thc delegate of Czechoslovakia in accepting the declaration.
Mr TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said the proposed amendment would not help.
At a previous meeting, in facts he had shown that the United States measures
affecting exports to. Czechoslovakia had succeeded in reducing them by 65%.
To M. Philip he replied that he had not. road the portion of Article XXV.:l
which related to the operation and the objectives of the Ag reement because
he did not think the United States proposal tended in any way towards the
achievement of the aims set out in these lines.-
The Declaration contained in GATT/CP.6/5/Add.2 for the suspension-of
obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia was put to the vote
by roll-call and was approved by-24 votes in favour, 1 against and 4
abstentions.
Mr. SAW OHN TIN (Burma) explained that he had abstained from voting
because he had not received instructions from his government.
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) said that in the view of his government it was of great
importance that the rules of the Agreement should be uphold and observed.
The Swedish delegation, therefore, would have preferred to see the matter
dealt with under articlee XXIII which offered appropriate provisions.. It
appeared from the debate, however, that their views had had very little, if
any, support and.they regretted that it had not boon possible to follow the
course suggested by then. After careful consideration of the matter,
therefore, his delegation had come to the conclusion that in the circumstances
and in the light of the statement they had heard, they could accept the
declaration submitted by the United States delegation.
Mr. SVEINBJ0RNSSON (Denmark) said he had been instructed by his
government to make clear to the Contracting Parties the reasons for his
abstention. It had often boon pointed out that the General Agreement was GATT/CP.6/S.14
Page 6
an extremely complicated instrument and the present discussion had shown once
more how difficult was its interpretation. His government had always hold
that the Agreement was to be considered a legal text, whose provisions had
to be observed within the limits set by justifiable legal interpretations.
The presentation of the views of the United States in GA.TT/CP.6/5 had given
rise in their minds to some doubt as to whether the Contracting Parties were
competent to take a decision. It was with satisfaction, therefore, that they
had noted the statement of the United States delegate that they would not
involve the Contracting Partis' in the consideration of the substance of any
political issue. His delegation had searched all possibilities of finding
a provision which could form the basis of an acceptable solution, and they
had come to practically the same conclusions as those reached by the Swedish
delegation, namely that a solution could be found in Article XXIII which,
ha supposed, had been incorporated in the .agreement in order to provide
general rules for the settlement of disputes such as the present one. The
implication was that Article XXV:5(a) would not be applicable as it referred
onl.y to "exceptional circumstances not elsewhere provided for".
The Danish delegation would hesitate to accept a decision which might
signify approval of the riqht of a contracting party to free itself from
obligations under an international convention by claiming that unspecified
exceptional circumstances, which the Contracting Parties did. not deem
themselves competent to appraise, prevented the contracting party concerned
from. complying with its obligations. Further, they had found difficulty in
understanding some of the paragraphs in the declaration, and they would have
liked to see a reference to an article of the Agreement.
Mr. KATADININGRAT (Indonesia) said that he had abstained because he had
no lnstructions from his Government.
Mr.TAUBER (Czechoslovekia) protested against the declaration by which
the Contracting Parties authorized the United States to free itself from its
obligations to Czechoslovakia. His delegation considered this action illegal
and contrary to all the principles of international law and to the letter and
spirit of the Agreement. This illegal act was the result of pressure
exercised by tho United States on the contracting parties. The United States
Goverment, instead of making use of its commercial relations for the
dovelopment and strengthening of pacific collaboration between nations with
respect. for the principles of sovereignty and equality of countries, preferred
to violate the principles of international law and international agreements
and to abuse its connections to interfere in the internal affairs of. other
countries. Czechoslovakia had always attached fundamental importance to
respect for international obligations and it had always observed obligations
undertaken. For this reason, his Government could not accept the validity
of this illegal action, and would adhere strictly to the provisions of the
Agreement. No one could oblige then to denounce an international agreement
and they would not follow the example of the United States. For this reason
they asked the Contracting Parties, in accordance with Article XXIII: 1(a), to
recognize their right to withdraw the concessions which they had negotiated
with the United States; by freeing the United States from their obligations
under the Agreement, the Contracting Parties had made themselves accomplices
of the United States in the nullification of the benefits which his country GATT/CP.6/SR.14
Page 7
derived from the Agreement. He wished to repeat that they protested
vigorously against the illegal decision of the Contracting Parties and they
contested its validity.
Mr. THORP (United. States) said that he would refrain from engaging in
political argument; in spite of the provocation, he would refuse to be drawn
into an irrelevant discussion.
M. CASSIES (Belgium) said that he understood very well that the re-
presentative of Czechoslovakia should protest against their decision in the
interest of his country. The Contracting Parties had been confronted with
a difficult legal problem of a kind which had not been foreseen when the
Agreement was drafted, and they had had to find a solution to a practical
problem. It was their job to make the Agreement work, and he wanted the
representative of Czechosloyakia to know how much he regretted that such a
decision should have had to be taken. It followed from their action that
Czechoslovakia and the United States wore no longer contracting parties with
respect to each other, but he thought the fact must be welcomed that both
countries remained contracting parties with respect to all others. It was
not true that they had acted under pressure: rather they had taken a course
which was in the interest of the Contracting Parties who wanted to see both
governments remain in their midst. Nor was there any violation of the letter
and the spirit of international law or of the Agreement and he in his turn
wished to protest against such an assertion by the delegate of Czechoslovakia.
It was possible to engage in long discussions on which article or general
principle was applicable to the case, but he thought it was reasonable that
in exceptional circumstances obligations should be waived between two
contracting parties. He would also add that in 1948 the need for some such
provision had been realised and Article XXXV had been added to the Agreement.
It might seem illogical that two parties to an agrrement should not be bound
as between themselves but no one could deny the practical advantages, and the
Contracting Parties had adapted this principle to the case in question.
Furthemore, the Contracting Parties were a sovereign body and their decisions,
when taken in conformity with formal requirements, were valid.
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) also protested against the assertion of the
representative of Czechoslovakia that the vote of the Contracting Parties was
the result of pressure from the United States. The vote of his delegation
was given after full consideration.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India), calling attention to his country's well-known
independence of action in international affairs, also protested against the
allegation of pressure. His Government had accepted the proposal because
in the circumstances it appeared to be the only practical step.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia), referring to his request that his Government
be freed under Article XXIII to withdraw the concessions initially negotiated
with the United States, asked that a decision by taken by the Contracting Parties
on this point.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Czechoslovak delegation should, if it so
wished, request the Contracting Parties to consider this point. The Contracting
Parties would decide whether to place it on their Agenda.
The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. |
GATT Library | vb610yp1130 | Summary Record of the Fourth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 7, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/06/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.4/Corr.1 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vb610yp1130 | vb610yp1130_90270172.xml | GATT_140 | 152 | 1,096 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CPS/SR.4/
Corr.1
7 June 1951
BILINGUAL
PA- 'E
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Special S,ssions 1951
y Record of the FourttiMeeting e
Corrigendum
Page 2, the statement by the Italian Representative should read as
follows:
"Mr. ANZILOTTI (Italy) associated himself with the views
of the French Representative and recalled the declaration made
by the Italian Delegation concerning the ce fssi forbr the
participation in the proposed studies of al. O.E..GC. countries
of major economic importance."
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Session extradr,inai,e9 1951
gomp e,ne dde laLiuateièmeMeéancec
Corrigendum
Page 2, la éeclaration ué repéesentant de l'Iaolie oqit se lire de la
eanèee suivante:
"M. ANZILOTTI (Italie) s'associe aux observations du
repéesentant de la France, en rappelant ce qeé la é6éggation
italieneja d'éclaéeqàuantàé la écéessiée eo la partici-
patiné auxéetudes envisaéees de osus lsa pys' de l'O.E..CE.
d' impotéanceéeconomique fondamentale. " |
GATT Library | xn574ry8317 | Summary Record of the Fourth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Wednesday, 19 September, 1951, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 19, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 19/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.4 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xn574ry8317 | xn574ry8317_90270179.xml | GATT_140 | 2,684 | 17,399 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP . 6/SR .4
19 September 1951
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Wednesday, 19 September, 1951, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Informal Guidance for Correspondents
2. Continuing Administration of the Agreement (Continued)
1. Informal Guidance for Correspondents
The CHAIRMAN referred to the informal guidance for press and radio correspondents
(Press Release GATT/35) which was before the delegates for their approval after which
it would immediately be released to the press. This was approved.
2. Continuing Administration of the Agreement (Continued)
The CHAIRMAN stated that the preceding day's discussion had concluded for the
time being the consideration of secretariat services. The Contracting Parties
should now consider the question of a Standing Committee.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) referred to the reporst of the working party appointed
at Torquay (Document GATT/CP,5/49) which had been limited to the procedural and
administrative aspect of the question and covered these aspects very extensively.
The Working Party after studying those matters had concluded that a standing committee
could serve a useful purpose and contribute to the efficient administration of the
Agreement. There now remained only the question whether contracting parties were
ready and willing to establish a standing committee. Arguments based on procedural
or administrative grounds coult not change the position which governments had pro-
sumably taken in the interval between the close of the Fifth Session and the present
one. The previous day's discussion had shown in any case that governments were
concerned more with practical than procedural considerations.
The Canadian Governnent still agreed with the conclusions contained in the
Report and would welcome the establishment of a standing committee as envisaged in
the Report. They would hold to this position, however, only if a sufficient number
of contracting parties shared their opinion and were ready to make a standing committee
effective, provide adequate representation and; in fact, take the normal steps re-
quired to make the General Agreement an effective and growing organization. His
govornment believed that the operation of the General Agreement should be made more
effective and business like and that the Contracting Parties should be in a position
to do all the work outlined in the Report. Alternative proposals might, however,
prove acceptable. The Contracting Parties might prefer to establish a number of GATT/CP.6/SR.4
Page 2
intersessional working parties and to delegate to the Secretariat much of the
work assigned in the Fifth Session Report to the proposed standing committee.
Those matters could obviously only be decided when a decision had been taken on
the question of principle.
Mr. SUETENS (Belgium) considered the problem a d delicate one and thought it
would be unwise to take very settled positions from the start of the discussion.
The report of the Working Party raised. many questions. It was clearly stated
several times that a standing committee would have no authority to take any
decisions. He wondered whether in such circumstances it would be possible to
delegate any powers to such a committee. He referred to the fact that the
ITO Charter, and even the Interim Commission for the ITO, provided for smallar
groups, composed on the basis used in tho Report for the standing committee,
to which certain powers were delegated, and he wondered if this principle had
been completely abandoned. A committee which merely prepared agenda items
did not seem very useful, as it would be sufficient merely to appoint a working
party composed of suitable exports and to assign further functions to the
Secretariat.
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) could not agree with the Belgian Delegate. A
standing committee would be of great assistance in Undertaking a preliminary
examination of questions, thereby shortening the time which the Contracting
Parties would have to devote to their consideration. Certainly the delegation
of powers by the Contracting Parties to a body which included only certain
countries could not be contemplated, nor was it desirable to accord to such a
body the power of decision. A standing committee should be viewed as an
enlarged working party whose decisions, because of the number and variety of
countries represented, would have somewhat greater weight than thoso of an
ordinary working party. The composition of a standing committee would, of
course, be an important matter. A sufficient number of countries should be
represented without, however, making the Committee too unweildy. Furthermore,
he believed, there should be yearly rotation of membership on a geographical
basis so that the interests of the different regions would always be represented;
only in this way could the committee be fully representative and the results of
its work have sufficient weight with the Contracting Parties.
Sir Hartley SHAWCROSS (United Kingdom) expressed his pleasure in taking
part in a session of the Contracting Parties and emphasised the importance
which his Governnent attached to their work. He regretted that he had to
disagree with the proposal for a standing committee. The General Agreement
was of particular interest to the United Kingdom as co-signed with the United
States of the Atlantic Charter, where the idea of an international commercial
body had originated, and as a close associate of the United States in evolving
the 1945 commercial policy proposals. The series of conferences that had
taken place since that time had made this a notable: international enterprise
and, although all the work had not come to full fruition, the efforts in drawing
up the Havana Charter had not been in vain. There was no ITO, but the
Contracting Parties had already an impressive record as a co-operative effort
in international trade. His government attached much importance to continuity
in the official representation of the various countries and he mentioned the
debt of the Contracting Parties to M. Suetens, Mr. Wilgress and the present
Chairman. GATT/CP.6/SR.4
Page 3
The United Kingdom Government, along with thers, had not yet felt able
to commit itself finally to the General Agreement. It wished at some point
to review the whole operation of the Agreement as it stood in the light of
experience. The United Kingdom would have to assess particularly how far
the restrictions on imperial preferences and the provisions concerning relations
with the International Monetary Fund were counterbalanced by tangible advan-
tages to the United Kingdom contained in the Agreement in its present form
whatever the United Kingdom's view on these matters, however, they fully
supported the idea of the Agreement. The periodic meetings of the Contracting
Parties were also considered of groat value and the mutual friendship and under-
standing built up by such meetings was, if perhaps intangible, one of the most
significant developments of the post-war years.
The practical character, which the General Agreement combined with its
high ideals, was to the United Kingdom of the greatest importance. His
Government felt that new international bodies should not be superimposed on
the already large number . &/'ng, unless there was definite proof that they
would be worth the time and money involved. International co-operation was
not necessarily promoted by increasing the number of international bodies and
he doubted whether a standing commiittee would be sufficiently useful. The
Belgian delegate had referred to the Executive Board of the ITO: this might
have been proper for the ITO, but the volume of work of the Contracting Parties
was very much smaller than that contemplated for the ITO and it did not follow
that methods suitable for the larger organization would be suitable for the
smaller.
The main question was how to deal with matters which arise between sessions.
There was also the lesser question of making preliminary studies of agenda items.
His Government in considering this matter had asked themselves various questions;
first, would there be enough work for a standing committee ? Experience to
date suggested that there would not. The Contracting Parties had already
provided for the appointment of intersessional working parties on particular
subjects and in only three or four cases had it been necessary to call them
together. There had been occasions when preliminary work would have been
useful on the agenda for a session, but such work might, on the other hand,
only have resulted in duplication. Unless the scope of the Contracting Parties
were greatly extended there would probably not be sufficient work for a
standing committee to do, and if it were not fully occupied, it could not build
up the continuity of experience which would be its main value or it might, on
the other hand, create work in order to justify its existence. Secondly, was
the work of such a kind that it could best be done by a body of fixed composition
rather than by ad hoc working parties appointed to deal with the specific
matters? His government considered ad hoc working parties made up of
suitable experts on particular items more efficient.
The present method of periodic meetings of Contracting Parties had one great
advantage which might be lost by the creation of a standing committee. The
people who met together from time to time each year for the Contracting Parties
spent most of their tine in their respective countries engaged in the day-to-day
.administration of the various matters that wore discussed at the meetings.
They had therefore experience in the practical application and the implication
of any policy. Members of a standing committee, on the other hand, would
become specialists in international discussion and would be isolated from the GATT/CP. 6/SR .4
Page 4
practical application of the results. The present realistic spirit of the
discussions derived essentially from the direct contact of practical admini-
strators with their opposite numbers in other countries.
The time might of course come when the scope of the General Agreement
would be such that an effective body operating between sessions would be
necessary. He would prefer to defer further consideration of this proposal
until such time: in fact, it would be more appropriate to take it up when
the Contracting Parties came to consider the revision of the terms of the
General Agreement which his Government felt would be necessary if the Agreement
were to become a fully satisfactory instrument of internaional trade policy.
Mrs. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) said that it had been the general opinion of
the Working Party in Torquay that a standing committee could serve a useful
purpose. Contracting parties had agreed to take no final position then but to
be prepared to state their positions at the Sixth Session. The Danish Govern-
ment was prepared to support the establishment of a standing committee on the
lines laid down in the Report of the Fifth Session. They agreed that a standing
committee should take no decisions, but thought it could do useful preparatory
work. His government also supported in principle the suggestions on the
composition of the standing committee, though they would have to reserve their
final position until the actual membership was proposed, and on its terms of
reference. The question raised by the Belgian delegate of the power of taking
decisions had been carefully discussed in Torquay. It had been agreed that a
standing committee could take no decisions, and his government would certainly
not be able to support any other proposal. While Denmark was prepared to
support the creation of a standing committee, it did not wish to press the
proposal and he was quite prepared for further discussion. Referring to the
remarks made by the United Kingdom representative Mr. Sceinbjørnsson said that
he did not understand that the creation of a standing committee would prevent
the setting up of specialised working parties where necessary. The idea was
rather that such a committee would be useful and helpful for the contracting
parties and the Secretariat in the intervals between sessions of the Contracting
Parties. He could not agree that before adopting any now methods of procedure,
complete success must be assured; surely the criterion should be that the new
procedures could do no harm and might be helpful. With reference to the United
Kingdom suggestion that consideration of the standing committee be postponed
until the Agreement in general was reviewed, he suggested that experience of
the actual operation of a standing committee might be useful when the time came
for taking a final decision.
Mr. THORP (United States) thought there was agreement that there was a real
problem of dealing with matters which arose between sessions. His government
felt that a standing committee was one satisfactory solution to the problem, but
their basic concern was with a solution rather than with any particular form.
He was not particularly impressed with some of the difficulties that had been
raised. The suggestion had been made that the committee might be composed of
impractical people creating work for themselves. His government had never
envisaged a standing committee in continuous session but rather that it would
be available to meet when circumstances required and that its meetings would
be considered sufficiently important so that the practical administrators would
attend them. As to the increased strain on government resources, the solution GATT/CP.6/SR.4
Page 5
of ad hoc working parties might prove as great a strain. A standing committee,
on the other hand, might be able to lessen the strain by careful planning.
Furthermore ad hoc committees were appointed essentially to carry on and report
on matters after a full discussion had taken place in the Contracting parties,
while the proposal for a standing committee provided that preparatory work could
also be done. If the purpose of a standing comittee were carried out and
the preparatory work successful, the sessions of the Contracting Parties them-
selves might be considerably shortened, and this would surely be of benefit
to gorvernments. It would never be really possible, of course, to assess which
of the two forms would be the least expensive.
He was concerned, however, the that the imperfections of
the General Agreement and the reed for eventual reconsideration should influence
decisions on the means of improving its present efficiency. The United States
did not attach inportance to the standing committee in itself, but was anxious
to find a solution which would increase the efficiency of the organisation.
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) said that in the discussion at Torquay they had
sought a means of increasing the officient operation of the Agreement in its
present form. Norway continued to support the establishment of a standing
committee, and did not consider that it could in any way prejudice the future
of the Agreement itself. The revision of the Agreement, which he agreed would
certainly have to take place, might perhaps involve altering the standing
committee. His government felt that a standing committee would serve a useful
purpose but would not press strongly for its establishment if other countries
disagreed. He suggested that a working party be set up to study further the
Torquay Report and the papers prepared by the Secretariat in the light of these
discussions.
Mr. PERERA (Ceylon) said that his government could not support the proposal
for the establishment of a standing committee, particularly with the terms of
reference set out in the Report of the Torquay Working Party. He agreed with
the views expressed against its establishment and particularly with the United
Kingdom delegate. Although he agreed also with the Canadian delegate that a
standing committee might contribute to the efficient running of the General
Agreement and that certain questions might usefully be clarified for con-
sideration by the Contracting Parties at their regular sessions, the objection
of his government was based on othor grounds. Ceylon was not in favour of the
delegation by the Contracting Parties of air powers to a body composed only of
certain contracting parties no matter how limited the terms of reference.
Furthermore, although the standing committee was only empowered to make recom-
mendations and not decisions, a body which possessed the right to make
rocommendations inevitably strongly influenced the final decisions. Although
working parties had the power to make recommendations there was in his view
a considerable difference between a standing corr'itteo with fixed mnobership
and ad hoc working parties established for particular questions.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | kx997qz4725 | Summary Record of the Fourth Meeting of the Contracting Parties : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay on Monday, 2 April 1951, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 10, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/04/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.4 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kx997qz4725 | kx997qz4725_90270171.xml | GATT_140 | 839 | 5,623 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CPS/SR.4
10 April 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Spetial Session, 1951
Summary Record of the Fourth Meeting
of the Contracting Parties
held at the Marine Spa, Torquay
on Monday, 2 April 1951, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subject discussed: Prublera of the Disparity of European Tariffs (GATT/CP/103
.GATT/CPS/5 )
~~~~ ~ 03
The CHAIRMAN invited the Contracting Parties to discuss the draft
Resolution which he had submitted to them in document GATT/CPS/5.
Mr. CHAKRAVARTI (India) welcomed the Chairman's proposals and hoped
the Contracting Parties would accept then. His delegation had admitted the
urgency of the problem and they had agreed that the Contracting Parties should
be prepared to deal with it, Their attitude had been that insofar as the
problem-was purely European any proposed solution should satisfy certain
conditions :
1. it should be acceptable to the European countries concerned,
2, it should be consistent with the terms of the General Agreement.
They also agreed that the study of this problem should provide an opportunity
to improve'present methods of negotiation in order that the advantages thereof be
made available to all contracting parties.
All their requirements were met by the proposals before them and they hoped
that a practical solution could be found which would satisfy the interested
parties and be in.keeping with the Agreement.
Mr. STEYN (South Africa), Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) and
Mr. HOORE (USA) associated themselves with the representative of India in support
of the proposal.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that all the points he had made at a previous
meeting were met by the draft resolution and his delegation therefore whole-
heartedly supported all the principles incorporated in it.
Mr. COHEN (UK) supported the draft without reservation. GATT/CPS/SR.4
page 2
Mr. AZIZ AHMED (Pakistan) also wished to associate himself with the
remarks of previous speakers.
Mr. LECUYER (France), expressing his approval) wished to make a
reservation which did not imply any change in the text of the resolution.
The invitation contained in the draft was addressed to the contracting
parties and acceding governments which had signed the memorandum. But in his
view the Contracting Parties should look forward to receiving proposals agreed
to between all interested parties. The Contracting. Parties would no doubt take
into consideration any formal proposal. It was quite natural that they should
address themselves only to the signatories of the memorandum, but one should not
lose sight of the fact that certain governments had not signed the memorandum and
that. others had not taken part in the discuss ons. The French Government felt that
it was of fundamental importance that all the parties to the General Agreement who
were also members of the OEEC should take part in the discussions which were to
take place..
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) supported the proposals before them. His
delegation felt that the tariff negotiations as at present conducted .had lost
much substance and that the General Agreement might now enter a new phase
.Mr. ANZILOTTI (Italy) associated himself with previous speakers and
with the remarks made by the Representative of France.
Mr. ROHAC (Czechoslovakia) expressed his appreciation for the Chairman's
success in presenting a resolution which was consistent with the General ;
Agreement. If he still had a reservation to make it was not because he wanted
to change the text of the draft, but rather because his delegation still felt
that even if consistency with the General Agreement had been achieved, there
remained words in the draft which might allow proposals to be formulated- which
would violate the principle of most-favoured-nation treatment as set out in_
Article I of the Agreements For that reason his delegation would abstain from
voting. No other meaning was to be attached to their abstention.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSEN (Denmark) supported the proposals. Referring to
the previous speaker's remarks he wished to say that the signatories of the.
memorandum had no intention of deviating from the terms of the Agreement. He
was happy that this compromise had been achieved and wished. to express recognition
of the valuable contribution made by the United Kingdom Delegation.
Mr. NATADININGRAT (Indonesia) expressed his support for the proposals.
The Resolution was adopted
The CHAIRMAN then proposed that the Working Party envisaged in the
Resolution be composed as follows: GATT/CPS/SR.4
page 3
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Cuba
Denmark
France
India
Netherlands
Italy
South Africa
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
He suggested that the Working Party should elect its own chairman, and that the
first meeting of the Working Party be convened by the Executive Secretary in
Geneva. It could then decide where it wished to hold subsequent meetings.
The CHAIRMAN's proposal was adopted.
After a discussion on the release to the press of their decision, it was
decided that a press communique summarising the discussion be prepared by the
Secretariat and submitted to the Contracting Parties the following morning for
their approval It was also decided that the memorandum (GATT/CP/103) and the
Resolution be de-restricted.
The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m.
~~~~~~ - -- B |
GATT Library | jb824pv4295 | Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.19/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jb824pv4295 | jb824pv4295_90270217.xml | GATT_140 | 147 | 1,145 | GENERAL AGREEMENT RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND GATT/CP.6/SR.19/
Corr.1
TRADE 26 October 1951
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 2
Paragraph 2,
In the 7th and 8th line of Dr, van Blankenstein's statement
delete the words "would inevitably" and replace by "might".
Page 5
In the third sentence of Mr. Hollis' (United States) remarks,
delete the phrase "the decision. ........ ... ..escape clause"
and replace by the followings:
"reliance should be placed on the statements by the
contracting party making use of the escape clause in
determining whether developments resulting in increased
imports had been foreseen,"
In the last sentence of his remarks, delete the phrase "in
order to see......the concessions" and replace by the following:
"to report to hi, any changes which might make it possible
partially or completely to restore the concession without
the danger of renewed injury". |
GATT Library | nj499wx8138 | Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Monday, 22 October 1951, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 24, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 24/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP. 6/SR. 19 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nj499wx8138 | nj499wx8138_90270216.xml | GATT_140 | 2,971 | 18,561 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/SR. 19
TARIFFS AND TRADE 24 October 1951
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Monday, 22 October 1951, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Accession of Austria, Peru and Turkey
2. Item 16 - Report of Intersessional Working
Party on Withdrawal of Concessions from
Schedule XX.
1. Accession of Austria, Peru and Turkey
The CHAIRMAN welcomed the Austrian, Peruvian and Turkish delegations,
whose Governments had, since the last meeting of the Contracting Parties,
acceded to the General Agreement.
Mr. WILDMANN (Austria) thanked the Chairman and the Contracting Parties
for the decision in favour of the admission of Austria. This was an
appropriate occasion for him to say that Austria, in the capacity of a
contracting party, was prepared to participate in all efforts leading to a
reduction in barriers to trade. The Austrian Government considered
international economic cooperation a decisive contribution to the development
of peaceful cooperation among nations.
Mr. LEGUL ROSS (Peru) also thanked the Chairman. His country was
proud to take part in the work of a group whose importance in the realm of
international comercial relations had grown with each session.
M. MAYATEPEK (Turkey) thanked the Chairman and the governments
represented on the occasion of Turkey's becoming a contracting party,
M. CASSIERS (Belgium), as Chairman of the Intersessional Working Party.
introduced the report. He reminded delegations that much importance had been
attached to this subject in Torquay by all the contracting parties, as well
as by Czechoslovakia, Italy and France, the contracting parties most concerned
with the actual withdrawal by the United States. The Working Party had been
particularly concerned as to whether the terms of Article XIX had been
respected by the United States. It had been suggested that judgment as to
whether the terms of the Article had been fulfiled rested with the country GATT/CP.6/SR.19
Page 2
invoking the Article and that a country which objected to the withdrawal
could only request compensation. The Working Party decided, however, that
any country which invoked Article XIX was obliged to respect the provisions
of the Article and that the Contracting Parties had the capacity to judge
the matter. The Working Party had reviewed the case carefully in the light
of the conditions set forth in the Article: namely that there should be an
abnormal development in the imports of the product in question, that the
increased imports must be the result of unforeseen developments and of the
tariff concession. that the increase took place under such conditions as to
cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers, and that the
withdrawal or modification of the concession must be limited to the extent
and time necessary to prevent or remedy such injury. The Working Party
considered that an increase had occurred under conditions such as to warrant
action under the escape clause. They were obliged to recognise that they
could not decide on the question of serious injury. The final conclusion
that the withdrawal should be limited to the extent and time necessary and
that the United States should keep the situation under review and restore
the: concession as soon as practicable was, in his view, of the utmost
importance. If this were accepted a precedent for dealing with such cases
and an interpretation of Article XIX of great value for the future would be
established.
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) agreed that there was no conclu-
sive evidence that the United States had acted contrary to the Agreement.
The Netherlands was not, however, happy with the conclusion of the Report.
It was clear that the main reason for the United States action was a
reduction in employment in certain sections of the economy. Such a precedent
would certainly be studied by governments in view of the important question
of a policy of full employment in a time of economic recession that would
inevitably someday arise. In fact, it was already apparent that the case
had been viewed in that light in the United States. He referred to Article
VII of the Trade Agreements Extension Act providing that a downward trend in
employment should be taken into account in any applications under Article
XIX, and that not only actual, but relative increases in imports with
respect to domestic production should be taken into account. This was a
very far-reaching result of the present case and he therefore particularly
welcomed the conclusion of the report that action under Article XIX should
be regarded as of a temporary nature and kept under review.
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) thought this case provided an interesting
example of the procedure provided for in Article XXIII. It was interesting
to note that the governments, other than the two directly involved, had been
able to agree on the interpretation of the Article and on the conclusions
and recommendations of the Report. This was a document that would have
continuing value in relation to the interpretation of Article XIX and he
suggested that the Contracting Parties should approve the report as a whole
and that it should be adapted for eventual publication as a report of the
Contracting Parties. .
RepMr. DEe Oe , etme.m cnz.':t .h'eport ono.of tho nost analytical
an the honsoentihss d.,'. sThA.TohO to Contracting Parties. e Wrking
Pclusivecognised Pitst thatbbo cot thatve evidence had been trough' tf;
tht accios takeedy the Unit3diitaoolliaanooitutoo a breach of 4ts QbigqtiVns GATT/CP. 6/SR.19
Page 3
under the Agreement. The impression gained from the Report, however, was
that although the measure might have been justified by events at the time when
it was taken the change in the situation since made it doubtful that the
measure was really necessary.From the analysis of the facts, and notably of
the provisions of Article XIX, the Working Party arrived at the recommendation
that the United States Government should restore the concession on hat bodies
in whole or in part as soon as it became clear that its continued complete
withdrawal could not reasonably be maintained to be permissible under
Article XIX. The Italian Delegation was entirely in accord with this con-
clusion and hoped that the development in the production and trade in hat
bodies on the American market would be such as to permit the United States
Government to modify the withdrawal and that the tariff could soon be
reduced to its 1947 level, which was already very high. The Italian Dele-
gation expressed this hope because the export of hat bodies to them American
market would contribute appreciably to diminishing the trade deficit between
the two countries. In fact the efforts of the Italian producers to increase
their exports to the American market was certainly in accord with the views
of the latter.
The minute examination by the Working Party of the provisions of
Article XIX showed the care that should be exercised in making use of these
provisions. Only if the concessions exchanged among the contracting parties
had a certain stability could there be confidence in the benefits of the
Agreement. The Agreement was flexible and contained escape clauses because
greater rigidity would have been neither workable nor acceptable. It was,
however, the existence of these escape clauses that gave rise to a certain
alarm over the powers given to some governments by internal laws which
covered the same field as the General Agreement and which frequently
resulted in uncertainty as to the value or advantages obtained after long and
difficult negotiatios. On the other hand commercial policy measures should
be considered as a whole. There would be little use in stability in customs
tariffs if the normal conditions of competition were altered from one moment
to the next by now import restrictions or by the grant of new subsidies for
production. With regard to the latter question the Italian Delegation
wished to inform the United States Delogation of the concern which a measure
recently adopted by the American Government had caused to Italian lemon
producers. This was a matter of great interest to the Italian economy and
his Delegation hoped that the conversations between the two governments
would result in a satisfactory conclusion.
M. LECUYER (France) said that the Contracting Parties were aware of
the fact that his Government considered the measure taken by the United
States regrettable and damaging.He wished to underline the importance of
this Report for the interpretation of the General Agreement. All contracting
parties agreed that Article XIX was an indispensable part of the Agreement
and also that its application might be open to abuse. The Report of the
Intersessional Working Party would serve as an interpretation of Article XIX
and as a guide to goverenments lost they should wish to invoke this
exceptional clause too lightly.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) thought the report showed the seriousness and
conscientiousness with which the parties to the dispute had placed the GATT/CP.6/SR.19
Page 4
facts before the Contractirg Parties. Such respect for the provisions of
the Agreement was very gratifying to his delegation and he was prepared to
accept the report of the Working Party. In the sense that the procedures
of the General Agreement had been strictly adhered to and the facts of the
case in question very carefully studied be was prepared to regard the
report as a precedent. He could not agree, however, that it established a
precedent in the application of Article XIX as it was clearly unlikely that.
similar circumstances and conditions would again arise. In his view the
essence of the report and of the precedent it established was the respect
shown to the procedures of the Agreement and the assurance it gave that any
ease put before the Contracting Parties would be carefully studied on its
merits,
Mr. SVEINBJARSSON (Denmark) thought that the thorough study given
to the question by the Working Party was very useful. He agreed as to the
need for the escape clauses but thought it particularly important to ensure
that it be not abused. Countries must be able to count on stability in the
concessions and he was not certain that, had he been a member of the
Working Party, he would have agreed with all the findings of the Working
Party. He referred particularly to paragraphs 34-35, which seemed to mean
that the members of the Working Party agreed that countries should be free
to protect uneconomic industries by means of sufficiently high tariffs.
The idea that by tariff reductions no damage should be done to existing
industries was, it seemed to him, very dangerous and against the basic idea
of the Agreement. The United States Delegaticn had indicated in Torquay
that numerous requests for the invocation of the escape clause had been
made and that this was the only request that the Tariff Commission had
granted. If this were an exceptional cases which would be very gratifying,
he wondered whether it was necessary for the Contracting Parties to take
any action on the report. Only three countries had been directly involved
in the natter. Of these three Czechoslovakia could no longer have any
direct concern, and he understood that the compensatory concessions received
by France and Italy had been accepted. It would be preferable not to take
a decision now which might prejudice a case under Article XIX, should such
a case arise again.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) did not agree with the conclusions of the
report. His Government considered this a violation of the Agreement and the
fact that the United States was the strongest economic power among the
Contracting Parties did not give them the right to proceed from one
violation to another. So far there had been three major violations of the
Agreement and always by the United States.
He referred to paragraph 6 of the report containing figures for the
increase in imports. In his view it was inappropriate to use the 1947
figures as a basis of comparison as production in Europe in the years
immediately following the war was obviously occupied with reconstruction.
Paragraph 7 gave the percentage reduction in the rate of duty that occurred
in 1947 but did not state that, after the reduction, the tariff was higher
than 70% and very much the highest in the world. The actual height of the
tariff was a factor that should have been taken into account in consideration
of the matter, He was unable to understand the logic of the other members
of the Working Party who agreed that unforeseen developments should be GATT/CP .6/SR. 19
Page 5
interpreted to mean developments occurring after the negotiations which
negotiators could not reasonably be expected to foreseeand that a style
change did not co.-e under this definition, but then agreed that the type
and scope of the change could be called an unforeseen development,
Paragraph 14 indicated that the production had decreased between 1948
and 1949. All United States production had decreased in that period,
however, and the figures for 1950 production were no lower than those of
previous years." Paragraph 18 gave the decrease in the employment figures
in the hat industry but did not show the increase that had taken place in
1951. In fact, paragraph 22 showed that there was no question of. protecting
the local industry but rather that the concession was withdrawn in order to
make possible the development of new lines of production. Finally, it did not
appear to him that the conditions for the application of the escape clause
had been fulfilled and it was apparent from the conclusion of the Working
Party in paragraph 30 that there was considerable doubt on this matter, since
the final Judgment was left to the United States. Final proof that this
measure was taken in violation of the General Agreement could be found in
the Trade Agreements Extension Act, where article XIX was included in contra-
diction to the spirit and letter of the General Agreement.
Mr. HOLLIS (United States) agreed to the proposal cf the United Kingdom
that the report be published. He wished to refer to one of the remarks of
the Chairman of the Working Party, which seemed to imply that the United
States had objected to examination by the Working Party of the appropriateness
of the United States action. Apart from one difference of interpretation
between the United States and other members of the Working Party, the United
States view being that the decision as to whether the provisions of Article
XIX had been complied with was within the province of the contracting party
making use of the escape clause, the United States had never objected to
consideration of the natter by the Contracting Parties or by the Working
Party. He expressed the appreciation of his Government for the understanding
manner in which the examination had been carried out. He also wished to
state that the United States Government had not waited for formal approval
of the report by the Contracting Parties, but that the President had already
written to the Chairman of the Tariff Commission, bringing the report of the
Working Party formally tc his attention, and requesting the Tariff Commission
to examine carefully the .ourse of developments in the matter in order to)
see if' it would not be possible partially or completely to restore the
concession,
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) complimented the Deputy Executive Secretary and
Mr. Burgess of the United Kingdon Delegation on their valuable contributions
'lo the work of the Working Party.
The CHAIRMAN said that there wore two proposals before the meeting.
The United Kingdom had proposed that the report be adopted as a report of
the Contracting Parties and published, and the Danish Delegation had
proposed that the Contracting Parties simply take note of the report without
taking any formal action on it. GATT/CP.6/SR.19
Page 6
M. CASSIERS (Relgium) said that it was his understanding that all
the contracting parties who had spoken, with the exception. of Denark,
had found the report acceptable. He asked the Danish delegate whether the
report was entirely unacceptable to him or if he would be willing simply to
have his statement included in the record.
Mr. SVEINBJJZNSSON (Denmark) said that he had only raised the question
as tc whether it was, in fact, necessary for the Contracting Parties to take
a decision on a case that was exceptional and no longer of practical interest,
but one that night prejudice the consideration of later applications under
Article XIX. He emphasised that his delegation would not like to have his
intervention interpreted as if he agreed with the Delegate of Czechoslovakia
who had considered that the United States action had been taken in violation
of the General Agreement. No delegation had supported his suggestion and as
it therefore seemed that all contracting parties were in favour of accepting
the report' he would withdraw his suggestion and not oppose the idea of
having the report bade public, on the understanding that it would appear from
the records that he, for the reasons he had explained, would have preferred
to see this question left open.
The report was adopted, subject to the statement by the Delegate of
Denmark and the opposition of the Delegate of Czechoslovakia.
It was agareed that the report be published.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia). said that adoption of the report night
imply approval of certain domestic legislation in the United States which
could have a bearing .on.the consideration of Item 30 (United States
restrictions on the import of dairy products).
Dr. van BLANKm-MNSTEIN (Netherlands) disagreed that adoption of the
report implied approval of United States domestic legislation, particularly
when the legislation had boon adopted after the drawing up of the Report.
The CHAIRMAN said that adopting the report carried no implications
of approval or disapproval of domestic legislation. The Contracting Parties
'were simply concerned with a specific case arising under Article XIX.
The meeting adjourned 1.05 p.m.
E |
GATT Library | tt515nw7969 | Summary Record of the Ninth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.9/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tt515nw7969 | tt515nw7969_90270192.xml | GATT_140 | 121 | 868 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.9/Corr.1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 29 September 1951
ENGLISH ONLY .Nv
CRATi CTINA P4RTIES
Sixth Session
MMAMI RY RECOID OF THENNIMME DIETING
Cohrirendum
e ro 6
The second maragraph of Sir Stephen Holmes's (United Kinmdor) statement,
line 7, shdulY read as foll-ws:-
"agreement whicigmi.ht epsit labaJnce, he suggested, as an alternative
to".
Ir Press's (New Zealand) statement should read as follows:-
"Mr. PRESN (Few Zealand) said that his dgae~mtion was opposed
to so material a change as the incorporation of the Charter provisions
at this soate and would wish, if that were proposed, tn raise the
queoti.n of distungiishing between the subjects covered by paragraphs
(a) and (b) on the ono hand and (c) onethc other". |
GATT Library | pq525sw5273 | Summary Record of the Ninth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday 21 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 25, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.9 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pq525sw5273 | pq525sw5273_90270191.xml | GATT_140 | 3,542 | 21,931 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR. 9
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 25 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday 21 September 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects Discussed: 1. Application of Haiti relating to Schedule XX
Withdrawals.
2. Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the Havana Charter.
3. Article XX Time Limit.
4. Order of Business.
1. Application under Article XXIII relating to Withdrawal of Items
1021(1) and 1021(3) from Geneva Schedule XX (GATT/CP/115/Add. 2)
M. SCUTT (Haiti) said that his Government desired to consult with
the United States Government under the provisions of Article XXVII
concerning the action of that Government in withdrawing from Schedule XX
items initially negotiated with the Government of China at Geneva in
1947. In reply to Haiti's request for renegotiation the United States.
had contended that they could not negotiate at Torquay on those items
because the notification from Haiti had been received too late for
inclusion in the public notice which must be given in advance of
negotiations.
- With regard to Haiti's delay in presenting its claim, he wished to
point out that the proclamation of the President of the United States
was made on 12 October 1950 and the Haitian Delegation had approached
the United States delegation at Torquay before 11 December, which was
the date on which the withdrawals had taken effect. He agreed that
countries should not delay their requests for consultations but he hoped
the United States delegation would not adopt a rigid attitude, especially
as no time-limit was provided in the Agreement.
Mr. THORP (United States) regretted that a problem of this kind
should be outstanding. His delegation confidently believed that, in
consultation with the Haitian delegation and before the end of the session,
they would be able to work out a procedure for dealing with it. The
scarch for a solution might be much facilitated by the arrangements which
the Contracting Parties might make for conducting negotiations between GATT/CP. 6/SR. 9
Page 2
sessions. He therefore proposed that the item be retained on the Agenda
for further consideration towards the close of the session.
2. Amendment of the Agreement to include Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the
Havana Charter (GATT/CP.5/23 and SR. 10)
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) recalled that his delegation had proposed at the
Fifth Session the incorporation in the Agreement of Articles 3, 4 and 6
of the Havana Charter. Their arguments were recorded in GATT/CP.5/23.
The Contracting Parties had then agreed that, in view of the uncertainty
which still existed with regard to the future of the Havana Charter, the
time was not ripe for action in this direction. The Contracting Parties
on the other hand had reaffirmed, in pursuance of the provisions of
Article XXIX, their intention to observe to the fullest extent of their
executive capacity the principles underlying Lt) and other articles
of the Havana Charter, The matter had been pursued no further by the
Norwegian delegation. By the end of the Fifth Session, however, it was
clear that the entry into force of the Charter could not be expected in
the foreseeable future and, therefore, the Norwegian Government had
decided to renew their proposal at the present Session. If it was
expected that in the not distant future there would be a meeting such as
that envisaged in Article XXIX for the purpose of submitting the Agreement
to a general revision, his delegation would not request a full debate at
present. He concluded by expression the hope that such a meeting would
not be long delayed.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) expressed his full agreement with
the Norwegian representative. His delegation had made their position
clear at Torquay and did not feel that the situation had changed so as to
make the Norwegian proposal less justified. As the preamble to the
Agreement recognised, the expansion of international trade was not an end
to itself but a means of raising standards of living, ensuring full
employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and
effective demand. It was significant that the original document on which
the Agreement was based was described as a set of proposals for considera-
tion by a world conference on trade and employment. Whilst it was true
that full employment had been made the subject of examination by the
Economic and Social Council and by the Organization for European Economic
Co-operation that was no reason why those provisions should not be
included in the General Agreement which seeks to lay down a basis for
international trade policy. It was unreasonable to expect the reduction
of trade barriers unless their was sufficient assurance that the nations
economy would not be endangered by a reduction in demand and employment,
and unless some body such as the Contracting Parties bore this constantly
in mind and had as its specific duty to give the question of employment its
full attention.
The United Kingdom Government attached such importance to the attainment
of the objectives recited in the preamble to the Agreement that they
questioned whether, in the light of experience over the past two years, the
proposed insertion of Articles 3, 4 and 6 would be sufficiently far-reaching. GATT/CP.6/SR.9
Page 3
Chapter II of the Havana Charter laid emphasis on deflationary pressures
resulting from instability of demand but not sufficient stress was laid on
the possible contribution of creditor countries. The policy of debtor
countries was to be constantly under review but there were no provisions
for reviewing the policy of the countries which were the source of scarce
currencies. It was necessary to ensure that the part played by the latter
was not left entirely unrelated to the obligations of the debtors. These
requirements were not very satisfactorily net by the provisions of Chapter II.
He concluded by expressing his gratitude to the Norwegian delegation for
bringing this subject to the attention of the Contracting Parties at every
session, and he reiterated the need for amendment of the Agreement with
suitable provisions, which should include Chapter II of the Havana Charter,
so as to make the Agreement a suitable instrument for long-tern commercial
policy.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) recalled the great interest his government had
always shown in this subject. He would only add to the considerations of the
previous speaker that as far as his country was concerned it would be almost
impossible for them to carry out their obligations under the Agreement if
one of the major commercial countries should suffer a serious fall in
employment.
Mr. PEREZ CISNEROS (Cuba) recalled that the inclusion of Article 7 of
the Havana Charter had been proposed by his delegation. The well worked
out balance of Chapter II would suffer if only a part were extracted for
insertion in the Agreement.
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) associated himself with previous speakers and
recommended that the question be kept in mind so that it could be taken into
consideration at an appropriate moment.
Mr. COPPOLA D'ANNA (Italy) thought the inclusion of the three articles
would be useful but that the sane could be said of other articles and in fact
perhaps the whole Charter should be incorporated into the Agreement.
Furthermore, he did not think the three articles added much to what was said
in the preamble to the Agreement. In the circumstances, his delegation were
prepared to accept a decision of the Contracting Parties on the inclusion of
the three articles, but did not think this was the tine to insist.
M. LECUYER (France) said that while his Government was very much
interested in the subject and was also very much concerned about the danger
of deflationary pressures fror abroad, they thought the question was a very
delicate one not only in itself but also because the matter was receiving
the constant attention of the Economic and Social Council. Duplication
should at all costs be avoided. It had been said that the Agreement needed
revision to bring it into line with changing circumstances and he agreed
that the task should, at the right time and with proper care, be attempted.
This was, however, not the moment, and he suggested that the matter be
deferred.
Professor ADARKAR (India) recalled that the position of his country had
been made clear at the Fifth Session. Ho agreed that a piecemcal amendment
of the Agreement was not desirable; that there existed in Article XXIX a GATT/CP .6/SR.9
Page 4
provision which should meet the desire of the Norwegian delegation that
there was no special urgency, and that there wore various other articles
in Chapter II, not to mention Chapter VII, which night appear to be equally
important. It had not been proved that the situation had changed in any way
or that the provisions regarding commercial policy in the Agreeemnt wore being
applied by any country without regard to the principles of full employment
or general economic activity. The Agreement was a workable instrument which
laid upon the Contracting Parties definite obligations, and any new and less
precisely defined obligations could only add to their already heavy burden of
responsibilities. For that reason recommendations were to be preferred to
the binding formulae of articles.
Such recommendations had, in fact, been made by the United Nations and
other Specialized Agencies , which had taken cognisance of matters connected
with employment, balances of payments and inflationary and deflationary
pressures. Questionnaires had been sent to Governments and conclusions
were being drawn from the replies received. He wished, therefore, to point
out that due attention would have to be paid to the proper co-ordination of
activities between various international organizations. In Article XII, para-
graph 3(b) and (c), an attempt had been made in the Agreement itself to recognize
the inter-relationship between employment and balances of payments. It was
not necessary to add much more. Moreover, most Governments seemed to agree
that a general revision of the Agreement was necessary. It would be a major
contribution to the future of world trade if the Contracting Parties applied
themselves to the solution of that important question.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) did not think it was necessary to make a speech in
favour of full employment to indicate the position of his government; nor
was it necessary for him to refer to his government's attitude towards the
Agreement. They had supported it consistently front its inception, and their
legislation had been brought into very close conformity with the terms of
the Agreement. When the question of definitive application came to be
discussed, his country would take it up; nor would they be found lagging if
the question of ratification of the Havana Charter were to come forward. The
particular proposals before them, however, were such that if they wore adopted,
ho did not hesitate to say that Canada would have to re-examine the entire
basis of their adherence to the Agreement.
He had followed the representative of the United Kingdom closely and,
as a representative of Canada, he had sympathy with the points which had been
brought up by him. They themselves had boon a creditor country and, since
adhering to the Agreement, they had also for a time been a debtor country.
He could speak, therefore, with full cognisance of both positions. They had
not only adhered to the Ietter of the Agreement when they were in a debtor
position but, as creditors had taken quite extraordinary steps on the lines
indicated by the representative of the United Kingdom. They had taken steps
to promote the sale in Canada of the products of countries which were in
difficulties, and this was not for any reason of scarcity at home but as
recognition of the obligations of creditor countries. They had also provided
loans and grante. GATT/CP. 6/SR .9
Page 5
Referring to the remarks by Mr. Adarkas, he thought if Chapter II were
implemented one could say offhand that the net effect would be to increase
considerably the number of escape clauses which were provided by the Agreement.
They should at all cost avoid diversifying their efforts to a point where
their work might become entirely ineffectual. If a piecemeal modification
of the Agreement were to be undertaken his delegation would also have proposals to
make, but he thought that the time for the revision had not yet boon reached.
Until such time it was better to preserve the equilibrium as it existed.
Mr. AGERUP (Denmark) supported the principle of the Norwegian proposal,
which he thought however would require a profound investigation. He considered
it was therefore appropriate to defer the matter until the occasion of a
full-scale overhaul.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) said that over the years the United States had
developed a keen appreciation of the importance attached by countries to the
relationship between questions of trade and employment. Such relationships
had been defined by the Havana Charter and it was unfortunate that the Charter
was not in effect. They would therefore have to examine the consequences.
When the tine came the Contracting Parties would have to consider whether
these matters had not better be pursued by different bodies. The previous
statements to which he had listened very carefully would be found useful when
they were considering what action to take. He assumed, however, that no-one
was proposing an amendment to the agreement at this stage because if so they
would find themselves back in the situation when the A.'c' were first drafted.
He proposed that they should take note and consider the question on some future
occasion.
Mr. PERERA (Ceylon) expressed his gratitude to the representative of
Norway and associated himself with the remarks of Sir Stephen Holmes that the
expansion of trade was not an end in itself. The Agreement in its present
form did not follow up the principles enunciated in the preamble but rather
constituted a series of prohibitions. While the Agreement was being drafted
his country achieved for the first time in 350 years their fiscal autonomy
which they could have directed to the development of their economy but could
not do so since they had adhered to the Agreement. Other countries in the
past had enjoyed full freedom in this field and he did not see why less
developed countries should not at present be allowed to resort to measures
designed to foster their economic development.
The CHAIRMAN said that the debate had shown a considerable measure of
agreement on the problem before them. He t ought he could sum up the
discussion as his predecessor in the chair had done at Torquay by referring to
the provisions of Article XXlX requiring the observance by governments of the
general principles of the Havana Charter to the fullest extent of their
executive authority. The debate had also shown agreement among contracting
parties on the need for re-examination of the Agreement at a later stage.
This was perhaps a new element in their debates duo to the fact that the Havana
Charter would not come into force in the foreseeable future. As he had
remarked in summing up the discussion on administrative questions it was
expected that a constitutional session of the Contracting Parties would have
to be convened at sone future date. They could therefore take note that the
Norwegian delegation reserved their right to bring the question up again. GATT/CP. 6/SR. 9
Page 6
3. Reconsideration of the Time Limit fixed in Part II of Article XX
(GATT/CP.5/32 and SR.16)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that at Torquay they had provisionally changed the
date in Part II of Article XX to 1 January 1952 and had decided that the
question should be further considered at this session.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that this question had boon
raised at the Fifth Session by his delegation and he did not need to
explain in detail the reasons why the Contracting Parties had reached the
decision to extend the period. Until the outbreak of war in Korea the
easing of shortages had been progressing at an encouraging pace and
improvements had been observed in the balance of payments of the sterling
Area and of European countries. The Korean war and its consequences,
however, had brought an end to the improvement in the material
situation, but this change was not fully realised by all when they last
discussed the matter. As an interim compromise, the Contracting Parties
had decided to extend the facilities of Part II of Article XX for one
year, and to review the situation at this session. The intervening
period had shown that there would be need for these facilities for a longer
tine as acute shortages in raw materials had boon caused by rearmament
with the well-known consequences on the terms of trade and balance of
payments. It had become necessary to sot up an international raw materials
conference to examine shortages and to make allocations. Stringent measures
of rationing and price control had been introduced to meet general and
local shortages, These measures were frequently inconsistent with earlier
Articles of the Agreement, but he suggested that the facilities of
paragraphs (a) and (b).of Part II wore as much needed today as when the
article was drafted.
The United Kingdom delegation still maintained that the most logical
action was to amend Article XX to correspond to Article 45 of the Havana
Charter. Article XX indicated a date beyond which certain measures could
not be maintained without approval, whereas the Charter provided that the
International Trade Organization would fix the date. In view of the mis-
givings expressed by some representatives with regard to amendments of the
Agreement which might upset its balance, he suggested, as an alternative to
the insertion of the provision of Article 45 of the Charter, that the /
facilities of Article XX, Part II, be extended for a further two years,
that is, until the end of 1953.
er. PRES (Now Zealand) supported this propesal, but homakehed to ricak
clear that on the occasion of any revision of the Agreement his government
would not be in favour of incorporating the Charter provision they would
insist on the separation of the subjects covered by paragraphs (a) and
(b) on the one hand and (c) on the other.-,
djoe CHAIRMAN aidurned the discussim. of this iteam GATT/CP. 6/SR. 9
Page 7
4. Order of Business
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Contracting Parties meet in the
afternoons of the following week to discuss the remaining items on the
Agenda. His proposed programme called for discussion of import restrictions
and special exchange agreements on 26 September, and in this connection
he read a telegram from the International Monetary Fund advising that on
account of their recent Annual Meeting the officials who were to represent
the Fund could not obtain instructions and be prosont in Geneva before
1 October; this would involve a delay of 4 or 5 days and he enquired
whether the Contracting Parties wished to continue the discussion in the
absence of the Fund's representatives.
Mr. THORP (United States) expressed his reluctance to begin
discussions without the representatives of the Fund. It was important to
maintain happy relations with the Fund and if no groat inconvenience
would be caused the discussion should be delayed. Further, the delay
would allow time for closer study of the draft report.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) said it would be inconvenient for
proceedings to be held up because the Fund representative was not
available. The date of the Sixth Session had been known for many months;
delegations had made their arrangements accordingly, and he hoped that
there would be no postponement.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) said. that plans for attendance at the session
had not been coordinated with proper efficiency. His government desired
that the best relations should exist between the Contracting Parties and
the Fund, and therefore suggested that the discussion should be postponed.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) agreed with the Canadian representative,
assuming that it was in fact impossible for the Fund to send representatives
by the 26 September. He thought a refusal to meet the request would
appear discourteous.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) agreed with the representatives of Canada and
Australia; while it was regrettable that the Fund's representatives were
not present, he thought it would be even more regrettable if in this
important matter they should begin the discussion without the represen-
tatives of the Fund.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that if it wore agreed by
the Contracting Parties that they should adjust their programme to meet
the convenience of the Fund, it should be made known to the Fund that they
had rearranged their timetable to suit the Fund's convenience.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Contracting Parties appeared to agree that
it was unfortunate that the Fund could not send a representative at the
time fixed in the programme of work adopted by the Contracting Parties,
but thought that there was much force in what sone delegates had said.
He suggested, therefore, that they ask the Executive Secretary to send a
cable to the Fund to ask them to send their representative as soon as
possible and the time chosen for the discussion of these items could be
considered again the following week.
The meeting adjourned at 7.10 p.m.
am
? m? - |
GATT Library | dd993dj2361 | Summary Record of the Second Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Friday, 30 March 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 10, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/04/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.2 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dd993dj2361 | dd993dj2361_90270168.xml | GATT_140 | 3,274 | 20,600 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CPS/SR.2
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 10 April 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Special Session, 1951
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SECOND MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay,
on Friday, 30 March 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. J. MELANDER (Norway)
Subject discussed: Problem of the disparity of European tariffs
(GATT/CP/103)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the problem of the disparity of European
tariffs had been raised at the Fourth Session of the Contracting Parties by
the Benelux and other delegations. These countries felt that insufficient
attention had been paid to the principle of Article 17 of the Havana Charter
that the binding of a low tariff was to be considered a concession equivalent
to a substantial reduction of high tariffs; the position of these countries
was therefore increasingly difficult for those countries since they had little
more to offer in exchange for the reduction of high tariffs in other countries.
The Governments of the Netherlands and Belgium, with the support of the
Scandinavian countries, had raised the question again at Torquay at the begin-
ning of the tariff negotiations. Since these negotiations had not in their
view made a sufficient contribution in the disparities in European tariff
levels the Benelux countries initiated informal talks at Torquay with other
delegations which had resulted in the memorandum signed by ten delegations
which was now before the Contracting Parties.
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) introducing the memorandum, made a state-
ment which has been circulated as document GATT/CP/S/3.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) spoke in support of Mr. Sveinbjørnsson
and wished to express his thanks to him for the manner in which he had conducted
the discussions of the group.
Mr. GARDINI (Italy) recalled that his Government had long supported the
creation of a single market in Europe and had presented to the OEEC a plan
dirgcted towards this very goal.
He wished to point out however that tariff reductions arising out of normal
neggtiations could not bring about a unified market. Tariffs were the numerical
expression of the real economic situation of each country. The possibilities of GATT/CPS/SR. 2
Page 2
reduction of tariff disparities were limited by the disparity of the economic and
social structure of different countries. i
The Italian Government would be glad to take part -in a further study of the
methods of tariff negotiation, provided such disparities in the economic and
social structures were borne in mind. Production in Italy had to. be. viewed as a
whole, taking into account the problems connected with all factors of production
and, i. particular, with labour, The problems of labour were the determining
factor in Italian economic and social policy. Unless they approached these pro-
blems realistically they would leave themselves open to grave illusions
Their work would be more logical and realistic if the European governments
concerned were to make their tariff proposals fit En with the aims of the OBEC.
The creation of a unified market would then follow logically. They should not
limit their efforts to the abolition of barriers to the exchange of products but
also to barriers impedinp the movement of factors of production, The problem
should be faced as a whole and not piece-meal.
He expressed the hope that practical studies be initiated, bearing in mind
Eurbpenn economic and social realities; that the studies be conducted on a broad
enough basis to allow the participation of all European GATT and OEEC countries;
and that the aims be so formulated as to allow of their practical realization.
He supported the proposal to set up a Working Party with the composition and
terms of reference su' ested by the signatories of the memorandum,
Mr. MOORE (United States) said that their attitude to this matter had
been determined by two fundamental considerations. The United States Government
had long identified itself with efforts towards the reduction of barriers in
European trade, and it was their:opinion that a concerted attack was now urgent
in the field of tariffs in view of the progress which had been made by European
countries in the reduction of other barriers, such as quantitative restrictions,
The second point which they wished to stress was that the GATT was the proper body
in which to debate, and endeavour to solve, tariff problems. His government would
consider sympathetically any reductions in .tariffs achieved within the framework
of the GATT and do what they could to offer compensation.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) expressed his agreement with several
of the points contained in tht paper before them and put forth by previous speakers.
It mipht have been foreseen when the Agreement was initiated that successive rounds
of tariff negotiations would of necessity slacken the pace of tariff concessions
and that some countries would sooner than others find it difficult to secure
concessions. He apreed that such a problem should be studied by a Working Party
of the Contracting Parties in accordance with customary procedures but, whilst
admitting the existence of a problem, he selt it should be recognized that the
problem wns not susceptible of an easy solution and that to save time and man
power it should be tackled on the right lines.. He agreed with the representative
of Itdly that the problem had wide implications and that a country's tariff was
the expression of e policy dictated by fundamental structural reasons. He was,how-
ever, surprised to hear the Italian representative say that he would agree to GATT/CPS /SR.2
Page 3
further reduction of tariffs only if other economic disparities were set right,
This appeared to be a very different approach. from that set out in the Memorandum
which was concerned only with tariffs,
The representatives of the United Kingdom had not signed the memorandum
because they did not agree that the problem was solely European. No one could in
fact deny that the fundamental point was what compensations non-European countries
could offer if the European countries agreed to certain reductions among themselves.
Moreover, while it was true, as Mr. SveinbJornsson had said, that the liberalisation
of European trade had brought out the practical importance of tariffs, European
liberalization was only an advance instalment of measures which would necessarily
be taken by other countries as they overcame their balance of payments difficulties.
The same problem would arise wherever non-tariff barriers were lifted, Too much
stress had been laid on the problem as a European one and this was reflected in some
of the proposals contained in the document. He did not agree that a Working
Party of the Contracting Parties should be limited in its composition to European
countries. They should follow their traditional procedure. Moreover, the
direction of the Working Party should be left entirely to the Contracting Parties -
for whom tariffs were a principal field of activity - and to no other institution.
This was not to say that the Working Party was debarred from seeking information
from other sources, but they should be conscious of the dangers of conflicts
of jurisdiction and it was very important for the future of the Agreement that
there should be no question of the organization which was to be responsible. The
dangers inherent in such conflicts had been clearly exempified in another context
at the Fifth Session.
In conclusion he affirmed that the United Kingdom delegation recognised the
existence of the problem and agreed that it should be studied by an intersessional
Working Party set up by the Contracting Parties and which would report to the
Contracting Parties at their next ordinary session.
Mr. STEYN (Union of South Africa) expressed his agreement with the
previous speaker without rese ration. His delegation recognised that tariff
di parities had created problems for European countries which should be examined
by a Working Party of the Contracting Parties. They believed, however, that these
difficulties were part of a much wider problem with which a number of contracting
parties were confronted. Having recognised, however the difficulties created
by the special set of problems and the danger that they might delay the progress
of multilateral reductions of tariffs, his delegation would welcome an investi-
gation of these problems by a Working Party of the Contracting Parties. Such a
Working Party should be fully representative nid should report to the Contracting
Parties. In the course of its work it should be allowed to consult other
organisations but should bear in mind the general provisions of the GATT, It
would be wrong to start with an objective which was incompatible with the GATT.
They should also carefully examine the bearing of this problem on different parts
of the world. GATT/CPS/SR.2
Page 4
Mr. DESAI (India) expressed his opposition to the constitution of a
working party of the Contracting Parties composed in a manner which ran counter
to their customary procedure. With respect to the problem in question, he thought
that if, as the document before them implied, the proposed action was a first step
towards the creation of a customs union the European countries should work out a
programme to submit to the Contracting Parties. Whatever might be the difficulties
of such action, it was essential that nothing be envisaged which fell outside the
limits of the Agreemenr. The European countries might prefer to agree to tariff
reductions amone themselves and thereafter seek compensation from non-European
countries. In that, case they should proceed with their negotiations and submit
their proposals to the Contracting Parties. If it was difficult for European
countries to agree on a scheme amongst themselves for submission to the Contract-
ing Parties then he would support the setting up of a. working party of the
Contracting Parties which would endeavour to obtain agreement and which by virtue
of its representative composition could act as a test before the final consider-
ation by the Contracting Parties. No scheme could be acceptable to the Contract-
ing Parties if it were unacceptable to a workine party of the Contracting Parties.
There were other facts also to be taken into consideration, for instance the world
wide character of the problems or the question of overseas dependencies of
European states, which latter raised the problem of the creation of another pre-
ferential system. All these problems should be examined by a working party repre-
sentative of the Contracting Parties.
Mr. RUL3MALN (Canada) said his delegation had followed the debate with
the greatest interest and wished to express his sympathy with the objectives of
the memorandum before them. He explaned that the Canadian Delegation appreciated
the increasing difficulties which were confronting the low tariff countries,
European and non-European, in their efforts to obtain satisfactory tariff con-
cessions. In the course of the informal discussions in which they had partici-
pated as observers they had made suggestions of a practical character and had,
above all, stressed the fact that if the European countries could get together and
secure agreement among themselves for tariff reductions, which they were prepared
to extend in a non-discriminatory manner Canada would examine the results in a
sincere effort to find payment for such tariff reductions which were of interest
to them. If any practical solution could be found within the terms of the Agree-
ment his Government would be prepared to extend all possible assistance in order
to make the project a success. They could not help feeling, however, that the
suggested proposals fell between two stools. If, in.fact, the problem were
exclusively a European one, then it would be proper for it to be dealt with by a
body such as O.E.E.C. set up to deal with European regional problems. They felt,
however, that the problem had broad ramifications which affects the interest of
many other countries, and for tht reason it fell more properly within the orbit
of G.A.T.T.
Moreover, in this field the contracting parties hd great experience and his
delegation felt that the likelihood of finding a satisfactory solution would be
greater if the direction of the working party were kept under the control of the
Contracting Parties. This did not mean that it could not draw on the experience GATT/CPS./SR. 2
Page 5
and technical resources of other specialised organisations, including O.E.E.C.
As to the composition of any such working party, there was no reason to
depart from principles and procedures which had long been established. It should
be remembered that it was a customary procedure that any contracting, party not
member of a working party was allowed to attend and participate in the discussions
of working parties when problems arose in which it had an interest. Finally, his
delegation were prepared to play a part in this exercise provided the terms of
reference made it clear that the working party would be seeking a multilateral
solution in accordance with the principles and objectives of the G.A.T.T. Any
solution which was contrary to the basic principles of the General Agreement should
be put aside from the beginning, nor should any approach be pursued which did not
provide hopes of a practical solution,
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) wished to reply as representative of
one of the delegations which had signed the memorandum to some of the points
raised by previous speakers. Two main objections seemed to have been raised:
the first was that the problem was not a purely European one, from which arose the
second objection, that the composition should not be restricted to European
countries and that the direction of the working party should come from the
Contracting Parties.
He did not wish to deny the existence of a worldwide disparity in tariff
levels, nor did he deny that a return of equilibrium in balances of payments with
the consequent reduction of trade barriers might give rise to the same situation
in other parts of the world. But whereas this was a hypothetical case, they were
here confronted with the actual problem.
With regard to the remarks of the delegate of italy relating to the disparities
of economic development and social structure in Europe, he thought there was no
doubt that Europe as a whole was a much more homogeneous developed area than other
parts of the world, and that the creation of more competitive conditions was more
strictly urgent. While stressing the urgency of the problem as a European one,
he wished to make it clear that every attempt should be made to reach, as
suggested by Mr. Desai, a non-discriminatory solution, It would be indeed
regrettable if a solution were found which was not compatible with the Agreement,
They had been moved by the best intentions and in approaching the
Contracting Parties they had no wish to create difficulties.
As to the composition of the working party their reason in suggesting that
it be limited to European countries members of the O.E.E.C. was based on the
necessity for a speedy examinationn of the problems. They had not intended that
other contracting parties should be barred from attending, but if they were to
set up a working party composed of the interested European countries and of a
number of non-European countries, the size, of the working party would make progress
difficult.
There was no question that a working party set up by the Contracting Parties
could only be under the direction of the latter; it was only suggested that it
should seek the co-operation and advice of the O.E.E.C. He also wished to make GATT/CPS./SR. 2
Page 6
it clear that it had been their understanding that it would be extremely difficult
to reduce European tariffs on a non-preferential basis if the extra-European
countries who would benefit were not prepared to offer compensation. He was
thinking, in particular, of the fact that the two countries which would most
benefit were the US and Canada.
Mr. MACFARLANE (Southern Rhodesia) expressed his understanding of the
armament put forward by Mr. van Blankenstein but felt that the European aspect
of the problem was over-emphasised, The machinery of GA'.'T had been tried and
tested and he suggested that they should adhere to traditional procedure,
Mr. ROHAC (Czechoslovakia) on the assumption that the discussions would
continue, reserved his right to speck on the matter at a later stage. He felt,
however, that the wording of the terms of reference was unhappy, perhaps because
it was the result of a compromise. It seemed. clear to him that the GATT
machinery, if the working party were set up as suggested in the memorandum, would
be subordinated to the aims of a body which was foreign to the General Agreement
and he supported the representatives of the United Kingdom and of Canada who had
spoken in favour of the customary procedure,
Mr. AZIZ AHMED (Pakistan) expressed his sympathy with the contents of
the memorandum but was concerned at certain suggestions which were couched in
a language that was not the language of the General Agreement. As a neutral
delegation they felt that the wording of the terms of reference gave the im-
pression that the Working Party might be subordinate, and certainly under the
influence of, another organisation. He submitted that all the signatories
desired could be met by the proposals of the United Kingdom and of Canada, and
suggested further that the United Kingdom delegation put forth their suggestions
in the form of a resolution.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) was prepared to accept the
suggestion made by the previous speaker and would endeavour to present a draft
resolution designed to meet all views.
The CHAIRMAN considered the general discussion closed and thought
the United Kingdom delegation should submit their draft at the latest on the
following morning.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) said his delegation would welcome
the United Kingdom submission which was supported by several countries, but
wished to point out that they had not yet discussed the document before them. In
particular the section containing suggestions for the setting up of a Working
Party.
Mr. PANDO (Cuba) supported the proposal that the United Kingdom
submit their document. GATT/CPS/SR.2
Page 7
The CHAIRMAN said that the discussions had touched on the two aspects
of the problem: the European and the GATT aspect,
The European countries felt that they might agree on tariff reductions among
themselves and this was primarily a European problem. To relate it to GATT they
would either have to envisage the creation of a Customs Union or Free Trade Area
or to agree among themselves on tariff reductions which they would thereafter
place before the Contracting Parties, with a view to seeking compensation from
non-European countries which would benefit from the extension of the reductions
to them in accordance with GATT rules,
It was his understanding that the majority of speakers viewed the problem as
a problem to be tackled within the framework of the General Agreement. No speakers
had of course expressed any objection to the examination of the problem by the
European countries among themselves. The two methods could in his opinion be
applied concomitantly. They could have a working party of the Contracting Parties
and at the same time the problem could be tackled by the O.E.E.C. Contact, of
course, would have to be maintained.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) referred to the Chairman's statement
that the majority were opposed to the setting up of a Working Party as proposed in
the memorandum and wished to point out that whereas six contracting parties had
spoken against., the eight contracting parties signatories of the memorandum were
to be taken as favourable to the proposal,
The CHAIRMAN replied that he had heard three speakers in favour and
six against.
Mr. LECUYER (France) wished to make it clear that he had signed the
memorandum upon instructions from his Government and that they had not modified
their position.
The meeting adjourned at 7.10 p.m. |
GATT Library | yb127yj0287 | Summary Record of the Second Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 18 September 1951at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 18, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.2 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yb127yj0287 | yb127yj0287_90270176.xml | GATT_140 | 2,030 | 13,353 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.6/SR.2
18 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RCORD OF THE SECOND MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 18 September 1951at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1, International Chamber of Commerce Resolutions
2. Unfinished Article XXVIII Negotiations
3. United Kingdom Schedules
The CHAIRMAN announced that Turkey had signed on 17 September 1951 the
Torquay Protocol and would therefore become a contracting party on 17 October.
Mr. ADATKAR (India), on a point of order, said that there was a loss of
time in the transmission of documents to governments far from Europe and they
had not yet had time to study the papers for all the items which appeared on the
Agenda, Consequently, delegations had not received full instructions.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the order agreed upon at the previous meeting
be maintained without prejudice to the right of individual delegations to ask, as
the necessity arose for a postponement of the discussion of any item.
1. Resolutions submitted by the International Chamber of Commerce
Mr. SVEC (Czechoslovakia) said that there was no provision in the rules of
procedure allowing a non-governmental organization to make proposals to the
Contracting Parties, The resolutions before them could, therefore only be dealt
with if they were put forward by a contracting party; otherwise the only course
would be to take note of them without further action. .
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY agreed that the resolutions before the Contragtink
Parties had no formal status since there were no arrangements at present between
the Contractinr Paxties and non-governmental organizations which would entitle the
latter to make proposals, The resolutions were however of a farcreadhing character
and had been, submitted by an important and influential non-governmental organization.
These proposals of the Chamber could be discussed only if some contracting party
supported their inclusion in the Agenda' and it was for the purpose of bringing
them to the notice of contracting parties. that this item had been placed on the
provisional list, With reference to one of the resolutions, that on samplnd aM
advertising material, he wished to point out that it had already bean submitted to
the Economic and Social Council which had expressed the hope that the Contracting
Parties would examine the question at their next session, GATT/CP.6/SR. 2
Page 2
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) expressed the view that the resolutions
deserved study and suggested that the Contracting Parties take them into
consideration. He proposed that a Working Party be set up to study then and
report to the Contracting Parties.
Samples and Advertising Materials
The CHAIRMAN said this Resolution had been passed by the International
Chamber of Commerce in 1949 and was based on the draft convention drawn up
by the League of Nations in 1935, The ground had been so thoroughly
explored that he did not think any great difficulty would be encountered by
the Contracting Parties in the study of the question.
Mr. SVEC (Czechoslovakia) opposed'. the consideration of this matter
because, as the League draft convention showed, any such action tended to
grant advantages to more industrially developed countries, which would
benefit from concessions made by under-developed countries without offering
compensation.
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) thought the matter deserved serious
consideration and should, if the majority of contracting parties agreed,
be referred to a Working Party to prepare a draft agreement for consideration
by the Contracting Parties. A good deal of work of a technical character
had already been done by other bodies and lately by a committee of the
Customs Union Study Group in Brussels.
M. LECUYER (France) supported the United Kingdom proposal and
disagreed with the contention of the representative of Czechoslovakia that
the advantages would all flow to the more industrially-developed countries,
A greater measure of freedom would benefit all parties.
Fr. ADARKAR (India) wished to reserve his Government's position
on this item, He pointed out that the League draft convention on which it
was proposed to base any study was an antiquated document, Account would
have to be taken of the widespread quantitative restrictions prevailing
today, His country's policy was very liberal towards the admission of
samples and he thought that care should be taken to avoid the possibility of
abuses involving loss of revenue and evasion of exchange regulations. While
he agreed with the representative of Czechoslovakia that any such convention
would favour industrialised countries he would not oppose consideration of
the matter by a Workirg Party provided the latter took account of the change
in conditions which had occurred since the League had first drafted its
convention.
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) supporting the representative of France,
suggested that the less-developed countries had a particular interest in
spreading information on their products and thought that considerable
improvement would be made in the League draft if more attention were paid
to the inclusion of agricultural products among the items listed in
Article II. Such a step would do away with any measure of discrimination
which right be found in the League draft. GATT/CP.6/SR. 2
Page 3
The Contracting Parties agreed that the question be referred to a
Working Party,
Valuation of Goods for Customs Purposes
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) understood that at the time the
International Chamber of Commerce passed this rosolution it had not had
time to study the interpretative notes to the Brussols definiti n which had
boon prepared by the Customs Union Study Group. Since then consultations
had proceeded between the International Chamber of Commerce and the Study
Group tn rosolve certain outstanding difficulties. His delegation folt it
would be preferable to defer examination of this resolution pending the
outcome of these consultations.
M. LECUYER (France) supported Mr. Calder's suggestion. He pointed
out that the consultations mentioned by him might cause amendaments to be
made in the Brussels Convention on Customs Valuation. The matter should be
referred to the next session.
M. CAS IERS (Bolgium) and Mr.ADARKAR (India) supported this
proposal.
The proposal was agreed.
Nationality of Manufactured Goods
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) said this matter was very important in
the application of customs tariffs and would have to be treated with great
circumspection. The International Chamber of Commerce proposals ran
completely counter to the regulations in the United Kingdom on the
eligibility of products for preferential rates, and he would not be able
to support the proposals.
At the suggestion of M. CASSIERS (Belgium), supported by M. LECUYER
(France) it was agreed that this resolution be placed on the Agenda of
the next session.
Resolutions on Documentary Requirements and Consular Formalities
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdoms procedures
with few exceptions agreed with the proposals set forth by the International
Chamber of Commerce. Procedures of some other contracting parties were,
however, more complicated and the consular and other foes charged on
importation constituted a significant barrior to the movement of goods. His
Delegation would like to see a discussion by the Contracting Parties and they
would support recommendations drawn up in the sense of the International
Chamber of Commerce's suggestions.
It was agreed to refer those rosolutions to the proposed Working Party.
Formalities connected with Quantitative Restrictions
The Contracting Parties agreed to refer this resolution to the next GATT/CP. 6/SR. 2
Page 4
Session.
Introductory Resolution
Mr. THORP (United States) pointing out that the creation of national
oommittees was a purely internal matter falling outside the responsibilities
of the Contracting Parties, suggested that no consideration need be given
to this Resolution.
This view was supported by Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) Mr. ISBISTER
(Canada) and Mr. ADARKAR (India).
It was agreed that this resolution required no further consideration.
2. Results of Negotiations
2.Results of under Article XXVIII which were unfinished at
Torguay. (GATT/CP/107, GATT/CP.6/119 and Add. 1, 2, 3, and
GATT/CP .6/14)
In introducing this item the CHAIRMAN suggested that this, together
with items 13, 14 and 29 of the Agenda, all involved modifications or
rectifications of the schedules of the Agreement and might be refered
without much general discussion to a technical working party, He recalled
that, at the Special Session in April, certain contracting parties had been
authorised to continue their negotiations on a few items notified for
withdrawal or modification under Article XXVIII. As suggested in
GATT/CP.6/14 there were two possible means of formalising the changes
resulting from these negotiations: either a special protocol could be drawn
up or they might be incorporated in a sixth protocol of rectifications
Mr. PERERA (Ceylon) expressed the regret of his government that no
agreement had been reached on their difference with France over the
withdrawal of two items affecting Ceylon's trade.The offer of compensation
by France had not been found acceptable and his government had, as a
counter-proposal, suggested a concession on tea. The French Govornment
had replied that no commitment could be entered into by them without
previous consultation with the Associated States of Indochina. This,
however, had. not yet been possible and Ceylon had recently been informed
that the French Delegation hoped to be able to start the negotiations before
the end of the present session. Therefore he might wish to refer to the
question again at a later date in the session.
M. LECUYER (France) confirmed the statement of the representative of
Ceylon and pointed out that the latter's government was offering no
hardship as the new rates had not yet been put into force.
Mr. VARGAS-GOMEZ (Cuba) said that their negotiations with the United
States had not been completed and that he would like to make a statement
on the following day after consultation with the United States Delegation.
M. BONHOME (Haiti) mentioned that, as recorded in GATT/CP/119 their
negotiations had been completed in time for inclusion in the Torquay
Protocol. GATT/CP.6/SR. 2
Page 5
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) doubted whether it would be appropriate
to include negotiations under Article XXVIII in a protocol of rectification.
He favoured a separate protocol of modifications and agreed that the matter
should be referred to a working party.
It was agreed that this item be referred to a working party.
3. The Geneva and Annecy Schedules of the United Kingdom
(GATT/CP/101 and Add. 1, GATT/'CP.6/16)
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) recalled that the Contracting Parties had
agreed at the Fifth Session that the redefinition of the concessions in
the Geneva and Annecy schedules of countries signatories of the Brussels
Convention on Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs
Tariffs should be effected by means of the normal rectifications procedure.
The transpositions of the Annecy and Geneva Schedules of the United
Kingdom had been circulated in Torquay in February and April and the
contracting parties and acceding governments were requested to furnish any
observations before the present session. Sweden and the United States were
the only countries which had submitted observations and his delegation
assumed that, subject to those queries being disposed of, the Contracting
Parties would be prepared to give their approval to the transposition as
circulated, Final nomenclature versions of the Geneva and Annecy Schedules
had been prepared which were identical with the protocols circulated in
Torquay except that the order had boon rearranged to follow the nubered
headings of the Nomenclature and a few small changes had been incorporated.As a
complementary measure to the adoption of the new nomenclature versions of
the Geneva and Annecy schedules it would be necessary to amend the old
schedules by the insertion of the following paragraph:
"If the Goverment of the United Kingdom brings into force
during the currency of this agreement a tariff based on the
Brussels Convention for the classification of goods for custom
tariffs, this schedule shall cease to be valid upon the date on
which such a tariff cones into force and shall be replaced by the
schedule in the now nomenclature which immediately follows this
schedule".
Mr. Calder proposed, in view of the considerable amount of time which
had already been given, that 1 October 1951 should be taken as the final
date for the lodging of objections. As for the mannor of giving effect
to this transposition he favoured incorporation in a protocol of rectifi-
cations rather than a protocol to replace the present schedules.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | ry991kf5147 | Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 9, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.17/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ry991kf5147 | ry991kf5147_90270214.xml | GATT_140 | 469 | 3,025 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.17/Corr.1
9 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 4
The last four sentences of the Chairman's remarks should read as follows:
"But in the present circumstances while many countries operated their
trade under group arrangements e.g. as members of the European Payments
Union or the Sterling Area and therefore could avoid discrimination as
between the members of such group arrangements, the problem was more
difficult for those countries which did not belong to any of these groups.
These countries had to adopt the bilateral approach and the Contracting
Parties should give sympathetic consideration to the position of these
countries. To be realistic one had to take note of the fact that converti-
bility of currencies did not generally exist and so long as this was the
case the discrimination against countries whose currencies were scarce
was very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid."
Page 5
Mr. Leddy's statement should read as follows:
"Mr. LEDDY (United States), while recognizing the difficulties of
summarizing a general discussion of this kind, thought that the summary
of the discussions by the Chairman might not be fully representative of
the views expressed and was perhaps a little too pessimistic. He would
have mentioned the fact that a number of delegations had called attention
to the relaxation of restrictions by the countries they represented,
and would have recalled that, notwithstanding new uncertainties,
significant progress had in fact been made towards the achievement of
international equilibrium in recent years. In his judgment the discussion
did not seem to reflect the view of many that restrictions were a part of
long-term economic policy; rather they had been referred to as transitional
measures called for by the present temporary financial disequilibrium.
However, each member of the Working Party would necessarily have to be
guided by his own interpretation of the discussions at the plenary meeting.
So far as the United States was concerned it would strive in the Working
Party to produce a report which all could agree was balanced, factually
accurate, and consistent with the objectives of the General Agreement to
which all had committed themselves." . .
.ATTSR. i CosR.17/o rr4.
Page 2 ; I ! -
Page 6
Add at the end of the first paragraph the following:
"and WaId that the' Working Party should aim at formulating a report which
would be representative of all the views expr.ssed in the discussion,"
I. '. .. . . , . . . .. . . ? . . - . - ....: I .. . . ? . ., . I .. .. .. % . - ! - - , .. . .., t. . '.. ... .. .,. -.j ".'I.. .
. .. t I . |
GATT Library | hv174nb6572 | Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 3, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/02/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.17/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hv174nb6572 | hv174nb6572_90270144.xml | GATT_140 | 71 | 504 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD
GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT,/CP, 5/SR.17/Corr.1
3 February 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTEENH MEETING
Corrigendum
In the third paragraph under Item 15 in the fourth line, CP/84 should
read CP/86.
COMPTE-RENDU DE LA DIX-SEPTIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum
Page 1, QUATRIème ligne du dernier paragraphe,
"document CP/86 au lieu de document CP/84."
lire: |
GATT Library | nv511wv5764 | Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations Geneva on Monday, October 1, 1951, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 3, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.17 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nv511wv5764 | nv511wv5764_90270213.xml | GATT_140 | 3,682 | 24,128 | RESTIRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.17
TARIFFS AND TRADE 3 October 1951
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations Geneva
on Monday, October 1, 1951, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects dicussed: 1. Accession of Germany
2. Balance-of-Payment Restrictions (concluded)
3. Membership of International Monetary Fund
and Special Exchange Agreements
1. Accession of Federal Republic of Western Germany
The CHAIRMAN welcomed the German delegation whose Government, from today,
had become a contracting party to the General Agreement.
Mr. HAGEMANN (Germany) thanked the Chairnan for his words of welcome
and referred to 1st October 1951 as being an important date for German
policy in foreign trade. Western Germany was flow a: contracting party with
full and equal rights and obligations under the General Agreement. The new
customs tariff, the classification of which was based on the Brussels
Convention, was coming into force today, and the concessions negotiated at
Torquay would now be applied all contracting parties.
20 Balance-of-Payment Restrictions (Concluded).
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) expressed his appreciation of the Secretariat
draft. His own country had had to maintain import restrictions, although
their extent had been reduced to the minimum admissible in the circumstances,
Some restrictions were of a unilateral character, though applied on a strictly
non-discriminatory basis, while others were arranged bilaterally. Of all
imports only about 20-25% were subject to control. Restriction in the
narrow sence of the word did not exist in Pakistan since, within the wider
boundaries drawn by permissible expenditure on hard-currency goods, no
discrimination or obstruction of any kind existed as to sources of origin
of imports. Pakistan did not have any state-controlled import monopolies
nor did the Government exert any influence on the composition or provenance
of such imports except where hard-currency imports were concerned.
Although his country was not; strictly speaking, in balance-of-payment
difficulties, the commercial structure of its foreign trade required control
over expenditure of hard currencies. Exports from Pakistan had greatly
increased in recent years, but the country was still not being adequately
supplied with essential consumer and capital goods; the effect of this was GATT/CP.6/SR.17
Page 2 , , "'
that the net balance of payments at any moment could not be called
favbrble since present and future' export earnings were-costantly being
mortgaged for the procurement ef essential goods,
The e circumstances had forced a policy of bilateralism upon.his
country, which in some cases was the only loans of fulfilling essential
needs. They had found that the multiplication of bilateral deals was one
way of achieving the ends. of multilateral trade in g~heral; sometimes the
natural and traditional channels df trade wouJl get blocked and if its
flow was then not actively directed by the government into a series of
bilateral channels flooding of the markets with certain products and
therefore waste? would result. This practice was at the same time used
tosnt esmenial needs, and he felt that, in doing so, hi6:Governieit-
wascalso seiving the purposes of the Uener4l Agreement sinie it promoted
trade in circumustances under which without this interventions trade wold
Inevitably have suffered. His country trnde was constantly on the
iorease and when its volume reached the desired level any remaining
interference could be albzshed. But oven at present this interference
espec acau in caunection with trade wdth the dollar areas was not- 6ifsing
.r decline, since his country still able to spend more on dollar
imports than it was earning by exports to the dollar area. Trade with that
area could be increased whenever opportunities of selling raw materials,
produced by Pakistan could be increased and the capital goods required
in exchange could be supplied.
Referring to the remarks of the Netherlands delegate, who compared
the incidence of high tariffs with that of quantitative restrictions, he
agreed up to a point nnly, sinco the two methods could not be hold to
overlap entirely. Countries which imported raw materials and produced
manufactured goods had every reason not to hnve high tariffs, since those
would only i rease production costs and be detrimental to their own
orpost aorwell as to the purchasing power of countrieJ imp6ttingj their
goods' There.were important reasons, however, for countries which relied
heaVily on imported manfactures and whose main exports consisted of raw
mater als, t maintain relatively high tariff1!efuch countries-had on
the wto e very tew sources of revenue and it would be damaging' 6o. the
conomy ot the whsle country not to. use the tariffs. .For .all these reason.
he coutdenot be t efavour of a general reduction, of. tariffs at ,ho present,
time aefhough. ueh redu.tion remained the ultimate aim o. his Govornmente
Mrr. TUC MINW(Finland) also 'conmendod the Secre.aiat onits
draom rapmrom Iam the fasst place however, he felt thct sOpe corment wAU
dae angceansagethn sart which described diicriminatory. ,rr'gQmehte
rEsultengEfromeanthe trade policy of the Organization for Buropo. Economic
Cooperation The report did not state suficiently clearly that countries
which did no form part for one reason or another, of the European-,
Payments Union, wo,ld be mreting wth greater difficulties in the future5
as tar as the abolition of restrictive practices was concerned, than
countries which were members of the Union, and which had thereby achieved
a certain convertibility of their currencies. Lifting restrictions would
be a much more difficult process for non-member countries since for them
the exceptional circumstances, Justifying the restrictions, had not ceased
to exist, Page 3
The question which would have to be decided upon in the future
would then arises i.e. at what stage justification for maintaining
restrictions would cease. ln this connection he would like to make some
suggestions to the working party which would be studying those matters.
In his view the time to lift these had restrictions had not yet come,
especially in view of the difficult circumstances which had been confronting
countries like his own which were not members of the European Payments
Union. Since these countries did not share any system of convertibility
of currencies it would-be extremely risky to start lifting restrictions now.
Due to this inconvertibility, imports from countries whose currency was
scarce had to be limited. On the other hand, Finland was doing what it
could to compensate for this situation by facilitating as much as possible
imports from countries which were willing to buy Finnish goods. This, in
short, was the essence of their trade policy.
Commenting further on some conclusions drawn in the report, there
were some contentions with which he could not agree, such as the state-
ments tending to prove that the incidental effects of import restrictions
would lead producers to concentrate unduly on satisfying the needs of
their own internal markets. He would quote the Finnish cellulose and
newsprint industries as examples. Current production of cellulose and
newsprint amounted to 1.2 million tons and 420 thousand tons respectively,
while exports of these products were at a level of 880 thousand tons and
380 thousand tons, representing over 70% and 90% respectively of production.
The report's conclusions were, therefore, somewhat too sweeping. Equally
he could not subscribe to consequent observations to the effect that the
interference with trade, which went with restrictive practices, would
cause exporters to neglect hard-currency markets and that governments did
not always sufficiently counteract this tendency. He would stress that
his Government did not regard bilateral trade dealings as more important
than trade carried on freely with Other countries Finland's exports
under bilateral agreements were not holding up in any way the traditional
exports to the United States, Brazi, South Africa and other countries.
Bilateral agreements were concluded only when necessary because of incon-
vertibility of exchanges; in no cases however, would trade with other
countries or areas be made to suffer because of their existence.
On the last part of the report he could not agree with those who
found that the pessimistic note was unjustified. It was said at the and
of the report that contracting parties should prepare to abolish res-
trictions and to take measures to prevent the necessity of such restrictions
in future. Finally he stressed that the best course for his country would
appear to be to proceed slowly since it could otherwise weld find itself
in a still more difficult position than before.
Mr.MELLO (Brazil) stated that Brazilian commercial policy was
based on the need to assure a reasonable equlibrium in the balance of
payments, due regard being given to the maintenance of essential imports
at a sound level. The level of imports was therefore limited to foreign
currency earnings from exports. The control policy, however, also aimed
at the greatest flexibility in the control of non-essential imports con-
sistent with the balance-of-payment situation. Hence, early in 1951, the
quota system was no longer applied to essential imports and a more GATT/CP. 6/SR. 17
Page 4
flexible treatment was adopted for less essential imports. In the absence
of international equilibrium. the need to apply strict control to imports
was evident especially when a country had no other resources than the
proceeds of exports to meet its foreign liabilities. But even so Brazil
had liberalized its trade control not only on imports from the dollar area,
but also from those countries with which any deficits under barter or
payments agreements had to be paid in gold or hard currency. The Brazilian
reply to the questionnaire indicated that inport licenses were being issued
for greater amounts than present imports; the value of imports for which
licenses were issued during the first half of 1951, had been greater than
total imports of the same period of 1950 by more than 150%. Future
policy depended to a great extent on world prices of Brazilian exports.
As these had been subject to violent changes in recent months, it had been
impossible to formulate a long-term policy. At present import restrictions
were necessary in Brazil, as in many other countries; circumstances had
rendered multilateral trade impossible and had compelled many soft-currency
countries to make bilateral arrangements. But the quotas which had been
established by Brazil and her trading partners under bilateral agreements
had been in each case higher than the traditional trade between the
countries concerned. The present commercial policy of Brazil, while being
of necessity restrictive, was as liberal as it could possibly be, and had
not been discriminatory in any unjustifiable way.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the discussion, stated that several
tendencies revealed themselves in the course of this general debate. First,
while some contracting parties felt that the time was now ripe for a
gradual relaxation of import restrictions, the majority, though agreeing
as to its desirability, maintained that it would not be practicable to
liquidate restrictions at this juncture. Secondly, since the General
Agreement required that restrictions should be as far as possible non-
discriminatory, it was natural that those countries whose exports were
discriminated against would wish to see all possibilities being explored
for the removal of discrimination. But in the present circumstances,
while many countries operated their trade under group arrangements, the
problem had also become a more difficult one for those countries which
did not belong to any of these groups. These countries had to adopt the
bilateral approach. To be realistic one had to take note of the fact
that convertible currencies did not generally exist The Contracting
Parties should give sympathetic consideration to the position of those
countries which were compelled by circumstances to adopt bilateral methods.
It had also been brought out in the discussion that commercial
policy should not be pursued too vigorously or be unnecessarily restrictive.
But practices such as "tied-sales" was in fact a symptom of the present
scarcity of many important commodities and could perhaps not be avoided
altogether before the scarcity problem was solved. Generally speaking it
was felt by some countries that equilibrium could be achieved through
internal financial measures, but the majority of the contracting parties
did not seem to accept this view. Some were keen to increase productivity
and to hasten industrialisation, and hence did not feel disposed to give
up the control of their trade which was often necessary to the overall
policy adopted. It was their aim that imports essential to the economic
development of their resources should have priority over unessential or GATT/CP. 6/SR.17
Page .5
luxury imports. Countries were at different stages of economic development
and belonged to different categories of economies, and could therefore
hardly be expected to apply the same measures for the cure of this dis-
equilibrium. That a very long tine might be needed for the solution of the
general disequilibrium, seemed to be a belief generally accepted the
important consideration being that during that period the policies adopted
should aim at avoiding any unnecessary damage to the interests of other
countries.
The CHAIRMAN then proposed the appointment of a working party,
on the understanding that all contracting parties might attend meetings and
ask to be heard, with the following terms of reference:
"(a) to carry out the review, required by Article XII:4(b), of import
restrictions applied by contracting parties under Article XII and to
prepare the second annual report, required by Article XIV:1(g), on the
discriminatory application of import restrictions;
(b) to recommend a procedure for the preparation of the third annual
report on the discriminatory application of import restrictions;
(c) to recommend a procedure for conducting, in March 1952 or thereafter,
any consultation which the Contracting Parties may have to undertake, in
accordance with Article XIV:1(g), with contracting parties still entitled
to take action under the provisions of Article XIV:1(c) or of Annex J."
Membership:
Chairman: Mr. J. G. Phillips
Australia Cuba India
Belgium France Norway
Brazil: Germany United Kingdom
Canada Haiti United States
Mr. LEDDY (United States) thought that the summary of the
discussions by the Chairman was not fully representative of the views
expressed and was perhaps a little too pessimistic. He would have stressed
the progress which had been made towards the achievement of international
equilibrium in recent years and in the relaxation of restrictions. It
was not quite true that import restrictions had been generally viewed as
a long-term measure; they were rather a transitional measure called for
by the present temporary financial disequilibrium. However, each member
of the Working Party would be guided by his own interpretation of the
discussions at the plenary meeting, in the light of which the Working
Party should strive to produce a report which agreed with the facts and
would not be contrary to the objectives of the General Agreement's
M.. BONHOMME (Haiti) suggested that considering the nature of
the subject the representative of the Fund might be made a member of the
Working Party in his own right. GATT/CP. 6/SR. 17
Page 6
The CHAIRMAN replied that although the representative of the
Fund would, of course, be invited to attend its meetings it would not be
appropriate to appoint the Fund representative as a member of the Working
Party. He agreed with the representative of the United States that in
the Working Party each member had to be guided by his own interpretation
of the discussions of the plenary meeting.
The terns of reference and the composition of the Working Party
as proposed by the Chairman were approved.
3. Membership of the International Monetary Fund and Special-Exchange
Agreements (GATT/CP.6/18 and 33)
(a) Report the Chairman on action taken in- accordance with
the procedural arrangements (GATT/CP.6/18,
Section (a))
The CHAIRMAN explained that in accordance with the procedural
arrangements made at the last session, he had taken certain action for the
implementation of the special exchange agreements with Haiti and Indo-
nesia. In the case of Haiti he had consulted with the Fund on the
question of the determination of the par value of the gourde for the
purposes of its special exchange agreement. He thought that the report
which he had submitted on the action taken during the intersessional
period was principally of a routine nature and referred to non-recurrent
action. The Contracting Parties might wish to take note of it without
detailed discussions
The Contracting Parties accordingly took note of the report by
the Chairman annexed to GATT/CP.6/18.
(b) Preparations for the report and consultation under Article XI
of Special Exchange Agreements (GATT/CP.6/18, Section (b) and
GATT/CP. 633 )
The CHAIRMAN said that the question of making procedural arrange-
ments for the preparation of the report and the consultations on exchange
restrictions applied under Article XI of special exchange agreements
could perhaps be taken up at a later tine in the light of the outcome of
the deliberations on procedural questions in the Working Party on balance-
of-payments restrictions.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) said that the reports by the Fund on
exchange restrictions in Haiti and Indonesia which had been distributed
that morning appeared to be straightforward factual accounts of the actual
situation and should be taken up by the Contracting Parties after a delay
of a few days for reflection. As regards the procedure for consultations
in March 1952, it was clear from the report submitted by the Fund that
Haiti was not applying any exchange restrictions under Article XI of its
special exchange agreement; And since Indonesia had the right to enter
into direct consultations with the Fund, there would seem to be no need to
provide the procedure in question. The required consultations, as well as GATT/CP. 6/SR. 17
Page 7
the preparation of future reports, could be entrusted to the Fund
If, however, the Contracting Parties felt that such procedures must be
provided, the matter could be referred to the existing Working Party on
Balance of Payments Restrictions, whose terms of reference could be
broadened for this purpose.
M. BONHOMME (Haiti) said that the views of his delegation were
similar to those put forward by the United States representative. His
delegation would like to make a statement at a later meeting concerning his
Government's communication to the Contracting Parties that it wished to
avail itself of the transitional arrangements under Article XI of the
Special Exchange Agreement for a further period of nine months.
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom), referring to the statement by the
United States representative, considered that the result of any consul-
tation directly entered into by a contracting party with the Fund on
matters falling under the provisions of a special exchange agreement had
to be reported to the Contracting Parties, who would decide whether the
result was satisfactory, even though this might often be no more than a
formality.
Mr. OESMAN (Indonesia) recalled that his delegation had announced
at Torquay that the Special Exchange Agreement which it accepted would be
of an interim character and that negotiations were being carried out with
the Fund regarding membership. His delegation would, therefore suggest
that, pending the final decision by the Fund on Indonesia's membership
the Contracting Parties should defer a discussion of the report submitted
by the Fund on exchange restrictions in force in Indonesia, Consideration
of the report would be unnecessary if Indonesia became a Fund member in
the near future.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) agreed with the United Kingdom representative
that the result of any consultation between a contracting party and the
Fund should be reported to the Contracting Parties. Further consideration of
this question was deferred for a later meetings
(c) Action required of Burma, Liberia and the new contracting
parties not members of the Fund (GATT/CP.6/18, Section (c))
The CHAIRMAN requested the representatives concerned to supply
information regarding the position of their respective governments.
U SAW OHN TIN (Burma) said that the International Monetary Fund
had determined the conditions and terms of membership for Burma and that
his Government, in spite of its preoccupation with internal problems of a
grave nature, was attending to the matter. However, in view of the legis-
lative and other formalities involved, it might still be some time before
Fund membership could be formally accepted. It would, therefore, be
appreciated if the Contracting Parties could allow a further period of time
for his Government to complete action. He would suggest that the time-
limit be extended until the opening of the Seventh Session.
Mr. FRIEDMAN (International Monetary Fund) confirmed that the
Board of Governors of the Fund had approved the conditions and terms of GATT/CP. 6/SR. 17
Page 8
membership for Burma, October 15 had been fixed as the date by which
Burma should join, but the Execcutive Board could extend that period to
April 15, 1952.
The request of the representative of Burma for an extension of
time to join the Fund or to accept a special exchange agreement with the
Contracting Parties was deferred for consideration at a later meeting.
Mr. HAGEMANN (Germany) informed the Contracting Parties that
Germany had applied for Fund membership some time ago and had hoped that
its application would be taken up by the Board of Governors of the Fund
at their last meeting. Contrary to expectations the application had been
referred to the next session of the Board which would meet in about
three month's time. As it was almost certain that Germany would be
accepted by the fund as a member within the near future, it did not seem
necessary for it to consider entering into a special exchange agreement
with the Contracting Parties.
The Contracting Parties note that under a resolution of the
Third Session Germany would have until 1 February, and Korea until four
months after signature of the Torquay Protocol to join the Fund and to
enter into a special exchange agreement.
With respect to Liberia, the CHAIRMAN said that the position of
that Government in relation to the Third Session Resolution referred to
in the document was being considered by the International Monetary Fund,
and suggested that the matter be deferred for consideration when further
advice had been received from the Fund.
This was agreed.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) said that his Government continued to
be concerned about the situation in which some contracting parties which
were not members of the Fund had not accepted special exchange agreements.
His delegation therefore proposed that the Contracting Parties should
give attention to this question at their next session.
The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | ft145wj6951 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.7/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ft145wj6951 | ft145wj6951_90270186.xml | GATT_140 | 282 | 1,820 | RESTICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.7/Corr. 1.
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 29 September 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Line 6 should read:
"finally resolved at the beginning of 1952 if it.."
The last two lines should read:
"United Kingdom delegate to investigate whether it would not be
possible at the present time to take provisional administrative
measures which would have the same effect".
Paragraph 5 should read as follows:
"Mr. Aziz AHMAD (Pakistan) drew attention to the fact that the
matter under consideration before the Contracting Parties was whether
the important proposal submitted by the French Delegation should be
admitted on the agonda of this session or not. He stated that if
the purpose in admitting this proposal to the agenda was that the
French Delegation would give the Contracting Parties further
information and details in regard to their proposal, speaking for
their own delegation, they had no objection to it. If, on the other
hand, the acceptance of this item on the agenda of the present session
meant that the item would be discussed by the Contracting Parties,
he pointed out that like the Delegation of the United States, their
delegation, and possibly other delegations had had no opportunity to
obtain the instructions of their Government, and would therefore
not be able to participate in a responsible discussion of this item.
He further added that in view of the absolute lack of instructions in
regard to this item, their delegation regretted they could not even
participate in a discussion for the terms of reference of a Working
Party if it was proposed to set up such a Working Party to examine
these proposals". |
GATT Library | ws475rd8253 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 9, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.7/Corr.3 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ws475rd8253 | ws475rd8253_90270188.xml | GATT_140 | 940 | 6,053 | RESTRIC TED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR .7/Corr.3
9 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
The United Kingdom delegation has submitted.the following corrected
rendering of the two interventions by Sir Hartley Shawcross, which they
request . be put in SR,7 to, replace the two paragraphs on pages 1 to 2
and the first complete paragraph on page 3..
"SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS (United Kingdom), introducing the discussion,
expressed his regret that the expectation of the United Kingdom Govern-
ment at the time of the Fifth Session that a satisfactory solution to
the complaints of contracting parties concerning the purchase tax system
in the United Kingdom would be found before the Sixth Session had not
been fulfilled. Developments had occurred in his country which had
delayed a solution, so that he had felt obliged to come to the Sixth
session of the Contracting Parties in person in order to explain the
situation on behalf of his Government. During the Fifth Session it had
been stated on behalf of the United Kingdom Government that they were
working on a solution to the general problem of extending the exemption
from Purchase Tax enjoyed by domestically-produced utility goods to
imported goods of the same types. The matter had then for some time been
under examination by the United Kingdom Government Departments primarily
concerned who, about the middle of the Torquay Session., had submitted to
United Kingdom Ministers a report which made it clear that, though it had
been technically feasible to make special ad hoc administrative arrange-
ments to exempt certain imported utility-type goods from Purchase Tax,
such methods could not be applied in general to all classes of goods in
the utility production system, If such a measure were to be effected new
legislation of considerable scope and complexity, as well as new adminis-
trative arrangements, would be necessary. However, the United Kingdom
Government was anxious to meet the entirely reasonable requests of the
other countries concerned, and in authorising the statement at the Fifth
Session, it was their intention to introduce legislation to this end at
as early a date as possible,
"More recently, however, certain considerations which had not
previously been envisaged became apparent. It must be emaphasised in this
connection that the utility system was a major regulatory mechanism
playing an important part in relation to price and wage levels, any
adjustment to any part of which could only be undertaken with due regard
to the way in which that part was geared into the mechanism as a whole. GATT/CP .6/SR. 7/Corr .3
Page 2.
There were a number of other, domestic, problems relating to the Purchase
Tax and Utility system which had attracted much attention and 'criticism
from United Kingdom trade and industry; and in April of this year the
Federation of British Industries had submitted a report which concluded
that the present system was having serious adverse effects on costs of
production, on exports, and on design and craftsmanship, There was clearly
a strong desire on the part of United Kingdom trade and industry for a
thorough re-examination of the whole system; and the United Kingdom
Government had concluded that it would be impracticable to deal with the
import problem in isolation, and that a satisfactory long-term solution
could only be found through a review of the Purchase Tax and Utility
system in its entirety. i.e, including both discrimination against imports
and the requests for improvement of the system from United Kingdom
industry, The United Kingdom Government had therefore appointed an inde-
pendent expert committee to examine the entire subject, Although this
committee was already well on the way with its work, tine would be needed
before final conclusions could be reached and put into effect, In these
circumstances, Sir Hartley had no alternative but to ask the Contracting
Parties to show understanding of the difficulties involved, a.s they always
had done towards Governments who needed time to overcome the problems of
carrying through important and desirable new economic measures, The
United. Kingdom Government sincerely regretted that they had been unable
to put the matter right.as soon as they had originally hoped, and had the
firm intention to abolish as early as possible next year the discrimination
against imports arising from the present system."
"SIR HARTLEY SHWCROSS (United Kingdom) replied that he could only
repeat his. Government's undertaking to try their best to resolve the
situation during the early months of 1952, He was most grateful for the
understanding shown by the Contracting Parties of the position in which
his Government found itself, and would bear very much in mind the
representations and comments which they had made It should, however, be
realized that it would be impracticable to impose a complete standstill
on detailed amendments of the present system; there had been no general
extension bringing new classes of goods within the scope of the utility
scheme and of discrimination, and, though there had from time to time been
detailed amendments in the actual specifications of classes.of goods
involved, as for example with cotton and rayon goods, which had widened
the area of discrimination in certain respects, this had been offset by
other instances, for example grey cloth, where detailed changes in the
system had decreased the area of discrimination, These changes could not
have been held up without dislocating the whole system; but the United
Kingdom Government would certainly bear in mind the points very properly
made in the debate about amendments of specifications and would have
Constant regard to the effect which such amendments might have on the area
of. discrimination , " |
GATT Library | bj687rk7583 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.7/Corr.2 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bj687rk7583 | bj687rk7583_90270187.xml | GATT_140 | 113 | 777 | GENERAL
ON TARIF
AGREEMENT
TARIFFS AND
ACCORD
GENERAL
SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP .6/SR.7/Corr .2
5 October 1951
BILINGUAL
TRADE
ET LE COMMERCE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
NTFLICTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Corrgendum
Add at the end of Mr. van Blankenstein's remarks the following words :
provided that the procedure would not interfere with the
progress of the discussion on the levelling of European tariffs".
RTIES CONTRAUTANTES
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
SixieSession
COMPTE RENDU DE LA SEPTIME SEANCE
Corrigendum
Ajouter ce qui s.uit a la fin de intervention de M van Blankenstein:
"a la condition que cette èprocedure n'entrave pas les progrs de
1'examen éde 1galisation des tar-is euxrpees". |
GATT Library | qn427sw0569 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Thursday, 20 September, at 3.00 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 4, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.7 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qn427sw0569 | qn427sw0569_90270185.xml | GATT_140 | 2,510 | 16,017 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 4 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLSH GATT/CP.6/SR.7
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Thursday, 20 September, at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. United Kingdom Purchase Tax.
2. General Reduction of Customs Tariffs (continued).
1. United Kingdom Purchase Tax (GATT/CP.5/SR. 20)
Sir Hartley SHAWCROSS (United Kingdom), introducing the discussion,
expressed his regret that the expectation of the United Kingdom delegation
at the Fifth Session that a satisfactory solution to the complaints of
contracting parties concerning the purchase tax system in the United
Kingdom, would be found before the Sixth Session, had not been fulfilled.
Developments had occurred in his country which had delayed a solution, so
that he had felt obliged to come to the Sixth Session of the Contracting
Parties in person in order to explain the situation on behalf of his
Government, During the Fifth Session the representative of the United
Kingdom had made a considered statement which implied that the United
Kingdom Government was working on a solution to the general problem of
giving equal rights of exemption from purchase tax to domestic and
foreign utility goods of the same type. A committee of experts from the
Treasury, the Board of Trade and Customs and Excise had been appointed to
advise the Government in these matters. At about the middle of the Torquay
session this committee had handed in a report which made it abundantly
clear that, even if it had been technically feasible to make special ad
hoc administrative arrangements to exempt certain imported utility type
goods from purchase tax, such methods could not be applied in general to
all classes of goods in the utility production system. If such a measure
were to be effected new legislation of considerable scope and complexity,
as well as new administrative arrangements, would be necessary. In spite
of this, the United Kingdom Government still considered, at the time of
the Fifth Session, that a general solution to meet the entirely reasonable
requests of importing countries could be found before long,
More recently, however, certain aspects of the problem, which
previously had not been considered in their full implications, became
apparent. In April of this year the Federation of British Industries
submitted a report which threw a fuller light on the importance of the GATT/CP.6/SR. 7
Page 2
current purchase tax and utility system as a regularising mechanism playing
an important part in relation to price and wage levels, any adjustment of
which could only be undertaken with due regard to the way in which its
constituent parts were geared into the mechanism as a whole. The report
concluded that certain definite adverse effects of a permanent characters,
bearing on costs of production, on exports, and on design and craftsmanship,
had become apparent and would necessitate before long a general review of
the whole purchase tax and utility system. In this connection the report
mentioned not only the disadvantages of the system to the internal economy,
but also the problem of discrimination against imports. The United
Kingdom Government had then concluded that it would be impracticable to
deal with the import problem in isolation and that a satisfactory long-
term solution could only be found through a. review of the problem in its
entirety, i.e. including discrimination against imports and the requests
for improvement of the system by the United Kingdom industry. His
Government had, therefore appointed an independent expert commitee to
re-examine the entire question. Although this committee was already well
on the way with its work, time would be needed before final conclusions
could be reached and put into effect. In these circumstances Sir Hartley
begged the Contracting Parties to show understanding of the difficulties
involved and sympathy with his Government in its endeavour to carry
through important and desirable new economic measures. The United Kingdom
Government sincerely intended to deal with the problems involved in a way
which other countries would find fully satisfactory and to abolish as
early as possible next year the discrimination against imports arising
from the present system.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) expressed his gratitude for the statement made
by the, United Kingdom delegate. He had been informed that a new Statutory
Order had come into operation in the United Kingdom on 17 September, as
a result of which exemptions .from purchase tax were extended to several
more utility goods, among then cotton dresses. The Canadian and United
Kingdom Governments had frequently discussed the utility tax system and
its disadvantageous effects on trade between their two countries, He
therefore greatly welcomed the statement just made,
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) expressed his appreciation of the
sincere intention of the United Kingdom Government to find a satisfactory
solutions, as evidenced by Sir Hartley's presence at this session. He
wished to point out, however, that although the Dutch export products
affected constituted only a small part of his country's trade with the
United Kingdom, serious embarrassment was being caused to his Government,
mine promises made to exporting firms had not been fulfilled; this
embarassment had grown as a result of the extension of the tax system for
utility goods in the United Kingdom during 1950, and although he had
complete confidence in the intentions of the United Kingdom Government, he
would enquire if an undertaking could be made that there would not be
further extensions of the system.
M. LECUYER (France) said that the question under discussion-had been
of groat concern to his Government, Although protection of industry in
the United Kingdom, had not been intended, protection had actually resulted, to
the considerable detriment of French exports, especially textiles, He GATT/CP.6/SR.7
Page 3
felt considerable disappointment since Contracting Parties had been led at the
Fifth Session to expect that the British Government would take appropriate
action at an early date, He shared the hope of previous speakers that, if a
solution wore again postponed, there would at least be no further aggra-
vation of the system, Moreover; he doubted whether the question would be
finally resolved in 1952 if it was true that now legislation would have to
be enacted, He therefore felt obliged to enquire seriously from the
United Kingdom delegate if there were any possibility of introducing
provisional legislation having the same effects
Sir Hartley SHAWCROSS (United Kingdom) replied that he could only
repeat his Government's undertaking to try their best to resolve the
situation duringe the early months of 1952. He expressed his sincere
gratitude for the understanding shown by the Contracting Parties of the
dilemma in which his Government found itself, and he could only repeat
his Government's sincere intentions to resolve the matter. The Contracting
Parties should however; realise that modifications of detail could not
at all times be prevented so long as the present system was in force, and
that even if it were true that some extension was being made in one
direction, it was also certain that, equivalent anges hadebeen made in
other directions, so that the resulting degree of discrimination at the
present time was no greater than before. He could, however; state that
no new discriminatory measure affecting a whole category of goods would be
introduced,
The CHAIRMAN concluded that the Contracting Parties would take note
of the statments made by the delegate from the United Kingdom and would,
no doubts wish to place the some item on the Agenda of the next sessions
This was agreed.
General Reductioon of Customs Tariffis ( continued) (GATT.CP,6/23)
Mr, Aziz AHMAD (Pakistan) recognistd the importance of the French
proposal but, like the delegate of the Unitee States would not be able to
obtain definite instructions from his Government during this session.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) regretted that he had not heard the French
Ministers presentation of the new proposal. There had not been much time
to study the proposal; but his first impression was that it should be added
to the Agenda, The many technical questions involved night make it
necessary to submit the proposal to a working party, Since the
proposal had a direct bearing upon some aspects of the tariff-problem, as
discussed at Taxquay, the Contracting Parties might decide to refer it to
the same working party, and he would not object to that procedure because
the composition of that working party was in keeping with the world-wide
implications of the new proposal.
Mr. ARGYROFOUI.ece) had much admiration for the originality of
the French plan which if implemented would do much to further .the cause of
liberalising world trade. But he agreed with earlier speakers that it
would be imposible, at this session, to m ake an exhaustive study of the GATT/CP.6/SR.7
Page 4
proposal because delegations would have to be carefully briefed by their
Governments.
There was, however, one aspect which he thought he should stress. The
French' plan made far-reaching proposals on customs tariffs, but it made no
mention of action against other, not less significant, trade barriers such as
consumers' taxes and other charges which, in some instances, were of more
importance than customs duties, Moreover, such charges often assumed a discri-
minatory character, He would class these measures in two categories: the first
category consisting of established taxes and charges which were allowed to
continue so long as the General Agreement was being applied provisionally, and
the second category consisting of charges which were applied to imported goods
of a class or kind not being produced within the importing country. As an
examples he mentioned tobacco - a commodity on which tariffs were generally low,
but on which an internal tax might be ten times the amount of the import duty.
He urged the Contracting Parties to study these matters and to include them on
the agenda of a future session.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) also thought that no useful discussion could take
place at this session and that therefore the proposal should not be put on the
agenda, The problem was especially important for low-tariff countries and would
require a full preliminary discussion before it could be studied by a working
party, Moreover, a discussion by the Contracting Parties should lead to some
conclusion as to the possibility of realizing the objectives, but this was not
possible at present since no delegation had instructions,
The CHAIRMAN considered that it was clear from the discussion that the item
should not appear on the agenda of the present session. He mentioned the
apparent difference of opinion as to whether the proposal should be referred to
the intersessional Working Party established at Torquay, Although it was right
for delegations to request a preliminary general discussions since the French
proposal did not fall wholly under the Working Party's competence, he had some
sympathy with the argument, notably that of the countries which had originally
raised the question at the Torquay Conference, that the terms of reference of,
the Working Party and the French proposal could not well be separated; for that
reasons the Working Party should be able to draw on this and any other later
proposal on the problem of tariffs in general which might come its way.
Consideration should also be given to the view that the Working Party's.
field of investigation should not be limited to European tariffs, since paragraph
(b) of its terms oi reference says that it should "consider the problem that
may arise in relation to securing adequate compensation fran such other countries
as may be likely to benefit from the non-discriminatory extension to them of the
arrangements proposed". He, therefore, concluded that the implications of the
French proposal provided enough points of contact to make it useful and desirable
for the Working Party not to exclude the proposal from its deliberations.
Although the Working Party would not be able to make firm recommendations at
this stage, it could study the French proposal and determine how fat it fitted
in with its own objectives, naturally preparatory work only could be done, and
the Contracting Parties could not expect more than a progress report at the end
of the present session which should enable them to provide the Working Party with
further instructions if necessary. GATT/CP.6/SR.7
Page 5
M. PFLIMLIN (France) expressed his gratitude to all contracting parties
who had shown interest in his proposal, He understood that delegations would
need further instructions from their governments but considered that in the
meantime the present session could form an opinion in what manner his proposal
should be studied further, He agreed with the procedure suggested by the
Chairman,
Mr, van BLANKINSTEIN (Netherlands) also had no objection to the procedure
suggested by the Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN considered that the different standpoints now appeared to have
achieved. a sufficient. measure of agreement to conclude that the French proposal
should be referred to the intersessional Working Party provided it did not
interfere -with its activities as originally planned.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought that the term "referred to"
was not quite in place, since it implied that a full discussion had taken
place in the Contracting Parties, Since this was riot so, might not the Chairman
suggest that, the French Delegation itself should submit its proposal to the
Working Party, this course, would; in his view, be more logical.,
M. PFLIMLIN (France) agreed to this, provided the Contracting Parties would
authorise the Working Party to study the French proposal when it was submitted.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) considered this suggestion satisfactory
if it implied agreement to the Working Party's priority on discussion of the
French proposal.
Mr. PEREZ CISNEROS (Cuba) saw some difficulty in giving instructions to
the Working Party when there had been no time to study the proposal fully or
to receive detailed instructions f rom governments, He hoped that it would be
clearly understood that the working Party would not be considering, the
substance of the proposal before delegations were ready to do so after appro-
priate study and governmental instructions.
Mr. THORP (United States) thought it should be possible to formulate an
agreement which would not lose sight of the undoubted right of the French
Delegation to expect from the Contracting Parties that the berms of reference
of the Working Party would imply the possibility of studying the French plan
in its full implications.
The CHAIRMAN, answering the Delegate of Cuba, remarked that whatever the
discussions on the French proposal in the working Party or the plenary sessions
might lead to, they could never, at this stage, result in any firm conclusions
or decisions by the Contracting Parties since no delegation had governmental
instructions. Summing up the discussion; he concluded that the Contracting
Parties had decided not to place this proposal on the agenda of the present
session, and that, in the first instance, it should be considered by the
intersessional Working Party from which a progress report would be expected before
the end of the session. On the baois of the report received the Contracting
Parties would be able if necessary to give the Working Party further instructions,
The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m.
. _# |
GATT Library | fx925fh5116 | Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 15, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 15/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.6/Corr .2 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fx925fh5116 | fx925fh5116_90270212.xml | GATT_140 | 153 | 1,192 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND RESTRICTED
TRADE GATT/CP.6/SR.6/Corr .2
TRADE
15 October 1951
fl~fTJT.PWl.R
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
S1Th*ECORD-OF TE SIXTEENTH NEETIN
Corrinum
Page .
The third a^ fourth lines of the first paragraph should read:
"The conclusion as to the bad effects of quantitative restrictions on
trade. Unfortunately the General Agreement".
Paa~~ line 4
Replace the words "were often" by ght very well be".
Last line
Before the word restrictions" insert the word "all".
After thawrd "restrictions" insert the words "whatever their nature".
Line 2I -aragra
Delete the words "frequently also".
2nd-aph 5th line
Delete the words "be a" and after the word "result" insert the words
"in the institution.
8th line should read as follow:
"should conform to the principles of Article XVIII and should therefore
be temporary, covering only".
10th line
Replace the word "were" by might".
Replace the words "ien the view of his government" by in his viw". |
GATT Library | sc496sc7063 | Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.16/Corr and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sc496sc7063 | sc496sc7063_90270211.xml | GATT_140 | 97 | 691 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.16/Corr.
5 October 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY (RECORD OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING
Corrigenduma
The thirteenth line of Mr. Press's statement should road as follows:
"restrictions. Evidence of the unfortunate effects of hasty and
premature removal of"
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Sixième Session
COMPTE RENDU DE LA SEIZIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum
page 4
Lire comme suit les 414ème et 15è6me lignes de intervention de M. Press:
"... restrictions. L'évidence des effets fâcheux de la suppression
hâtive et prématurée des ..." |
GATT Library | jx736dq7178 | Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting : Hold at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Saturday, 29 September 1951 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 3, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.16 and GATT/CP.6/SR.14/Corr.2,CP.6/SR.15-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jx736dq7178 | jx736dq7178_90270210.xml | GATT_140 | 2,467 | 16,099 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP. 6/SR. 16
3 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING
Hold at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Saturday, 29 Septembor 1951 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr, Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subject disussed: Balance of Payments Restrictions (continued)
Balance-of-payments Restrictions continued)
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) £idid he was generally in
agreernent with the draft prepared by the Secretariat and certainly with
the conclusion that greater progress in promoting trade would be obtained
under a system of multilateralism. Unfortunately the General Agreement
did not touch upon all of the fundamental problems at the root of
present difficulties; it recognized the symptoms and attempted to alleviate
some of the ills, ,but it did not remove the causes. He stressed this
particularly in view of the Canadian delegate's reproach to the countries
whose production had increased since the war but which had not
proportionately relaxed their restrictions. Experience had shown that
increased production was not the only problem to be solved; oven more
important causes of the monetary unbalance were to be found in the
problems of internal financial equilibrim, the quickly-shifting scono in
the world econony and the attempts of various countries to protect their
national interests against tho affects of these changes.
The report referred (page 40) to the question of tariffs. The
Netherlands had always felt that thore was a lack of balance in the
General Agreement between the condemnation of quantitative restrictions and
the tolerance of high tariffs. Customs duties were often a greater
barrier to trade than quantitative restrictions and his delegation would
like to see high tariffs included among the obstacles to the removal of
restrictions. It was, of course, the air of the Netherlands Government
eventually to do away with restrictions.
When countries could procure enough of other currencies, the
controls did not necessarily restrict trade, but where there was a shortage
and it could not be denied that there still existed a dollar shortage, the
restrictions necessarily hindered inports, particularly of finished goods.
Ho did not intend to repeat the well-known reasons, but only to add the
consideration that it was often difficult for manufacturers in soft-currency
countries to obtain raw materials from markets which were open to hard-
currency manufacturers. He considered the report sonowhat less than fair GATT/CP.6/SR.16
Page 2
in its reference to bilateral agreements (page 26). Such agreements aimed not
only at a.balance of trade but frequently also at a balance of payments.
The Netherlands Government agreed that bilateralism was an expedient to be used
no longer than absolutely necessary but in fairness, it should be stated that
bilateral agreements had helped to revive trade after the war, In many cases
also they had permitted the continuance of certain so-called non.-essential
industries and the preservation of the crafts and skills involved,
Dr. van Blankenstein thought that the view expressed in the draft that
the official mind was unadaptable was unduly pessimistic; the substantial
liberalization of trade presently taking place in Europe showed that the
contrary was true, The draft concluded by referring to the danger that
protectionism would be a result of the quantitative restrictions It was
true that many countries, his among them, felt it necessary to protect new
industries, The Netherlands however considered that protectionist measures
should conform to the terms of Article XVIII, should be temporary, cover only
exceptional cases and a small proportion of a country's trade, For this
purpose quantitative restrictions were, in the view of his Government, a more
suitable instrument than tariffs because they were by their nature temporary.
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) thought that all contracting parties had agreed
that import restrictions had been a necessary instrument to achieve rapid
reconstruction and expansion of production after the war, Lack of converti-
bility made it impossible freely to exchange goods between countries and the
absolute necessity for Norway to apply restrictions was beyond doubt. His
Government had to give priority to the import of capital goods to build up
the most important exporting industries and to restore the shipping industry,
Only thus could his country hope to pay for imports, He wished stress that
the restrictions had been applied in accordance with Article XII and certainly
not from protectionist motives. There had been considerable improvement
since the end of the war and gradually some restrictions were being removed,
In view of the general difficulties the progress in this way had not been
negligible. the South African delegate had referred to the growth of bilateralism,
but Mr, Borresen thought that important steps away from bilateralism had been
taken by European countries, The methods of bilateral trading had altered the
situation and added to the complexity of the problems, Certainly all contracting
parties should aim at the achievement of complete liberalization of trade as
far as compatible with their general economic objectives, On the question of
the consultations under Article XIV his delegation attached great importance
to coordination of the work of the Fund and the Contracting Parties,
Mr, PEREZ CISNEROS (Cuba) said that his Government considered the question
of quantitative restrictions one of the highest importance, Cuba was one of
the few countries in the fortunate position of not having to invoke Article XII,
but his Government had, since 1947, shown great interest and sympathy in the
problem of general economic disequilibrium. At the time of the drafting of the
General Agreement, and then later in the Contracting Parties, his Government had
exhibited understanding of the balance of payments difficulties of many countries,
They felt that their present international commercial policy was making a
contribution to the return to multilateral trade by giving other countries
the opportunity to earn dollars in Cuba through the suspension of certain
preferences with the United States, GATT/CP .6/SR16
Page 3
His Government, however, was concerned at the fact that, although the
situation had considerably improved. many countries had failed to relax
restrictions which affected the general level of world trade and the exports
of many individual contracting parties. He would question, along with the
Canadian delegate, whether the balance-of-payment situation would not allow
some relaxation of these restrictions. The present state of affairs and the
rearmament programme certainly created difficulties for many countries, but on
the other hand there were countries which, as a result of this situation,
showed an important increase in their monetary reserves and thus, under the
Agreement, worn no longer justified in maintaining their restrictions The
countries which had agreed in Geneva and Havana to the exceptions contained
in Article XII had believed that they would be only of a temporary character,
Four years had passed since that time and the restrictions were increasing and
becoming permanent. Any conclusion by the Contracting Parties that the
restrictions must continue would cause serious difficulties for many countries,
Such a state of affairs would be a marked rupture of the compromise which had
been negotiated four years ago, and would result in placing several countries
not invoking Article XII, in serious balance-of-payment difficulties, He
hoped, therefore, that the Contracting Parties would seriously examine the
problem and that some action or procedure for action would be adopted at this
Session. The interest of his Government in the whole matter was one of the
reasons why Cuba had supported the proposal for the continuing administration
of the Agreement,
M. LECUYER (France) disagreed with the United Kingdom delegate that
tables of balances of payments should not be included. It was important
for the Contracting Parties to have a complete picture of the situation of the
balance of payments and monetary reserves of the various countries, Nor could
he agree with the remark of the South African delegate that there was an
increased tendency to bilateralism, The Netherlands delegate had commented
on this matter and he merely wished to amphasise that in Europe the programme
of liberalization through the Organization for European Economic Cooparation
was narrowing very considerably the scope of bilateral agreements.
Mr. PRESS (New Zealand) said that the working party should consider the
technicaldetails but he was glad of the opportunity that had been given to
contracting parties to express their general attitudes on these questions,
The policy of the New Zealand Government was directed toward the eventual
elimination of quantitative restrictions; in fact, within a very short period
the non-discriminatory restrictions had been removed from over 80% of imports
from other than hard-currency areas, and further progress would be made, The
picture of the discriminatory application of restrictions was less bright.
All countries must regret the impossibility of making more progress in the
elimination of the latter and he did not consider that there was any real dis-
agreement between the countries forced to apply discriminatory restrictions and
the other countries such as Canada, No country had any stake in maintaining
restrictions, The unfortunate experience of hasty and premature removal of
controls, however, had led his Government to feel that the not result of a
rapid removal would be a step backward which would more than cancel any
advantages resulting therefrom Until there was a definite and permanent
improvement in the conditions which were responsible for the application of
restrictions the best way to approach the problem was by gradual relaxation, GATT/CP.6/SR.16
Page 4,
New Zealand had a very high stake in multilateral trade as they exported a
limited number of products to limited markets and Imported a great variety
of products from many different sources, Certainly the ultimate objective
was multilateral trade and free convertibility, and his delegation believed
that the present manner of moving towards that objective was less dangerous
than a hasty removal of discriminatory restrictions.
Mr. KASTOFT (Denmark) stated the Danish opinion on the possibility of
making further progress in the abolition of quantitative restrictions
Circumstances had forced his country to establish a system of quantitative
restrictions to safeguard their balance of payments but it should be
remembered that their customs tariff remained the lowest in the world; nor
should it be forgotten that protectionist tariff often had much the same effect
as quantitative restrictions, The Contracting Parties should try to be realistic
in their present evaluation of the situation and premature action might cause
damage difficult to repair, The distinction between structural problem and
temporary difficulties should be borne in minds the countries of Western
Europe had made good progress during recent years in dealing with the former,
but the past year and a half had unfortunately brought problems which could
be safely described as temporary difficulties He referred to the sharp
deterioration in the terms of trade of Denmark since the second quarter of 1950
and to the development in the raw material producing countries where a marked
improvement in the balance of payments situation could be seen, Such
differences would continue as long as some countries were laced with structural
problems and well-balanced international economy had not developed, The
problem should also be seen in correction with another main objective of the
Havana Charter, namely full employment , To a certain extent there was a
choice between liberalisation of trade and a policy of full employment and
no country could be blamed for giving priority to the latter,
Mr. Kastoft stressed the view that for several countries among them
Denmark, convertibility was the fundamental condition for the abolition of
discrimination, Probably in no circumstances could Denmark ever reach a
balance in trade or payments with the dollar area, and so long as it was not
possible to convert surpluses earned with other areas, discrimination would
be a necessity for his county In conclusion, he suggested that realism,
combined with a certain amount of optimism, would enable the Contracting
Parties to reach their objective before very long,
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) considered that the report of the Secretariat
had given rise to a very interesting debate, He had been particularly struck
by the statements of the South African and Canadian delegates on multilateralism,
Certainly multilateralism was the only possible objective for all contracting
parties, but unhappily it presupposed conditions which did not at present
exist. It had been said that the 1947 forecasts had not been realised, In
the case of his own country the war had been followed by a new war which created
furthe ruin and resulted in a most precarious economic situation, The trade
balance deficit was twice what it had been before the war and the invisible
earnings needed to make up the deficit had decreased even more, The Greek
case was certainly an extreme one, but many other countries were also faced
with grave difficulties in their internal and external economic relations. GATT/CP.6/SR.16
Page 5
To eliminate immediately all restrictions would probably cause a far worse
situations In any case the action of individual countries at the present time
depended heavily on the action of the whole community of nations. No country
could gain by anothers difficulties and the United States aid was one of the
proofs of the present need for international solidarity, In the circumstances,
many expedients had been tried, among them bilateral agreements and collective
agreements. The first had often made it possible to obtain products from nearby
countries without expending hard currency, and he would cites as an example of
the success of the latter, the case of the European countries where convertibility
was re-established through the Payments Union, These expedients were only means
to get past the present difficult situation and no one denied that the re-
establishment of multilateralism was the ultimate goal, But it would be unwise
to move too rapidly in that direction, and in aiming for the ideal the
Contracting Parties should not lose sight of present difficulties,
Mr. PERARA (Ceylon) said that Ceylon had removed nearly all quantitative
restrictions and had substantially relaxed the discriminatory application of
those that remained. In his country there was still a sharp controversy
between those who favoured the removal of controls and those who considered
it extremely unwise. The latter attitude was hardly to be wondered at in view
of the events of 1948 and 1949, and moral distinctions between the two attitudes
should not be drawn. In fact he would state quite frankly that it was only the
outbreak of war in Korea that had so improved the economic situation in Ceylon.
The United States delegate had suggested that less emphasis should be laid on
the United States role in stockpiling, but much of the present improved position
of Ceylon was due to the stockpiling by the United States, Surely it was
clear that the problem was a complex one, and not as easy to solve as the
Canadian delegate had implied, Countries had not yet reached the equilibrium
that had been envisaged by the framers of the Agreement and they must move
with caution.
The meeting adjourned at 12,30 p.m.
IMM=
la Lj |
GATT Library | cp563kg7973 | Summary Record of the Sixth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Thursday September 20 1951 at 10.30 .m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 20, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 20/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.6 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cp563kg7973 | cp563kg7973_90270182.xml | GATT_140 | 2,478 | 16,041 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR.6
20 September 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Thursday September 20 1951 at 10.30 .m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subject Discussed: General Reduction of Customs Tariffs
General Reduction of Customs Tariffs - Adoption of new Agenda Item Proposed
by France. (GATT/CP.6/23)
M. PFLIMLIN (France), presenting the proposal for inclusion on the Agenda,
explained that this proposal was designed to promote the objectives of the
General Agreement, that is, the expansion of international trade, and was based
on certain fundamental considerations. The complete elimination of all re-
strictions on international trade, though desirable from the long-term point of
view of productivity and costs, might in fact not achieve the desired purposes
in the face of important structural differences between the economies of the
world; if unbridled competition were allowed in the actual world the ensuing
dislocation was likely to impair seriously the economic equilibrium. Customs
tariffs and quotas were not only the prerequisite for progress in under-
developed countries but also essential for European nations urgently in nood-of
post-war reconstruction. In the prevailing circumstances in Europe, too abrupt
a change in the economic structure might well have consequences unfavourably
affecting the morale and cohesion of countries. On the other hand the tasks
of reconsideration and progress were more likely to be achieved through the
expansion of productive forces and the unification and liberalization of the
world economy than if protective measures were maintained indefinitely. This
view was perhaps the motive behind the initiative which had boon taken by the
Benelux Delegationsin Torquay in attempting to secure some lowering of European
tariffs.
The present proposal, which aimed at a general lowering of tariffs, was
based on three essential criteria. First, any measure, to be of value, must
be sure to lead to some relatively substantial and prompt results; secondly
it must be flexible enough to allow for necessary adaptations in order to avoid
any danger of serious disturbances; and thirdly it must be co-ordinated with
other measures for the economic integration of regional and world markets.
Good results might be achieved by an automatic reduction of tariffs by 30%; a GATT/CP 6/SR. 6
Page 2
further method adopted by the Office for European Economic Cooperation for the
elimination of quotas between European countries had yielded substantial results.
In order to preserve flexibility the countries were not to be expected to make a /
on each tariff item, and the number and the composition of branches of economic
activity for the purpose of tariff reduction would be a matter for common con-
sideration and agreement. For example these might relate to the five main
categories of products, viz: new materials, semi-finished products, foodstuffs,
capital goods and durable consumer goods. Taking account of the structural
differences between the various national economies and the principal function
of customs duties it was clear that a flat reduction of all items would not be
equitable, but special treatment could be provided where a country had not
reached a suitable stage of economic development or where duty rates of a
country were already exceptionally low in comparison with these of either countries.
It would be highly desirable if the Contracting Parties would endeavour to con-
centrate their efforts on the branches of economic activity or products which
were the object of her integration measures with a view that the tariff re-
duction and such supplementary measures would lead to prompt and decisive
progress towards economic unification.
Whilst aware of the difficulties and the imperfections of the proposal as
it stood, the French delegation nevertheless put it forward in the hope that the
Contracting Parties would study it closely and improve upon it so as, perhaps,
to evolve better methods for the implementation of the idea, which would de-
monstrate their determination in achieving the objective of promoting inter-
national economic co-operation.
The CHAIRMAN reminded the meeting that the question under discussion was
merely whether the proposal should be included as an item in the agenda.
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) said that he was surprised to see this
proposal being made at the present time. During the Special Session at Torquay
the Contracting Parties had resolved to invite ten governments to submit
proposals on the European tariff problem. That step was taken because it was
considered premature and unrealistic to propose any general reduction of tariffs
on a world wide basis, in view of the wide differences between the economic
conditions and stages of development of the countries of the world. Only in
Europe, where the economic conditions were somewhat homogeneous, was there a
general will and a common desire for economic integration and where the
differences in their economic environment and background were not such as to
make the achievement of a straightforward reduction in their tariffs totally
impossible, It was to be regretted that the ten governments invited to present
proposals had so far been unable to do so, but the reasons behind this were
well-known to the French Governments. It was therefore surprising that the
French Government should present a proposal without prior consultation with
that group, nor even with the Benelux countries with which it had been in
contact.
The present proposal was differences from that ,iat .' :J s t al
working party, in that it related to tariff reductions of all countries in the
world rather than in Europe only, and to proceed with it would inevitably
prejudice the work which had been started at Torquay. In conclusion Dr. van
BLANKENSTEIN proposed that the Contracting Parties should not take up the
French proposal, but should invite the Frence delegation to enter into discussions
in the first instance with the countries with a view to formulating agreed
proposals for submission to the intersessional Working Party. GATT/CP.6/SR.6
Page 3
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) described the French proposal as of the
utmost interest, and said that it rust be gratifying to the low-tariff countries
to see such an attempt being made by a major high-tariff country Referring
to the introductory paragraph of the document, he thought it was an exaggeration
to say that "important" results had been achieved towards the lowering of customs
tariffs since the inception of the General Agreement; what had been achieved
had perhaps been important enough to affect seriously only a few industries,
the effect on agriculture being entirely negligible The French representative
had said that the time had come for a renewed effort, and it was only to be
hoped that where there was a will a way could always be found. The French
proposal corresponded in principle to the objectives which had received
attention at Torquay. The proposed 30% reduction should, however, be regarded
only as a beginning of a process of further progressive reductions. A
reduction of 30%, whilst it would not cause great difficulty to countries with
high tariffs, mightputagreat strain on those countries whose tariffs were
substantially lower. This point was only partly met by the special provisions
in the French proposal. If, as, had boon declared by the French representative,
the breaking down of protectionism was the chief objective, it would be logical
that such an attack should be aimed at and concentrated on those points where
protectionism was to be found, including countries which afforded agricultural
protection. Furthermore, the emphasis laid on the integration of regional
markets might possibly lead to a new form of protection which would be even less
desirable than protection by means of high tariffs. Mr. Sveinbjørnsson agreed
with the Netherlands representative that to proceed with this proposal was
likely to cause confusion in view of the fact that a Working Party had already
been entrusted with the study of tariff problems. The Danish delegation wished
that the French delegation would proceed first to discuss the problem with the
existing Working Party.
M. SUETENS (Belgium) agreed that the proposal merited the greatest interest
and sympathy. It night be worth recalling in this connection that a similar
attempt had been made twenty years ago when an agreement was reached between
France and the Benelux countries at Ouchy in 1931 for a flat reduction of
their tariffs by 50%. The present proposal referred also to the coordination
of tariff reduction with efforts for economic integration. This was a
particularly valuable proposal since countries which could not expect other
compensation for reductions in their tariffs might be satisfied with the benefits
they might derive front the integration of markets. He thought the proposal
should be referred to the Working Party already in existence since any other
procedure might lead to protracted and sterile discussions.
Sir Hartloy SHAWCROSS (United Kingdom) suggested that this technical and
complex proposal should be referred forthwith to the Working Party since no
useful purpose would be served by prolonged discussion at this meeting.
M.PFLIMLIN (France), referring to the suggestion that the Working Party
set up at Torquay should deal with his proposal, was not certain whether that
Working Party, which had been instructed to meet during the intersessional
period and to present its report prior to the opening of this Session, was
still in existence. That Working Party, oven if it still existed, would not
be competent to examine the French proposal inasmuch as the latter referred to
the tariffs of the world and not to those of Europe only. The French Dele-
gation would, however, be agreeable to its proposal being referred to the GATT/CP.6/SR.6
Page 4,
Working Party appointed at Torquay, provided its membership was broadened to
include non-Europeran countries. Since the contracting parties would perhaps
need some time to reflect on the question, it might be desirable to door
discussion to some later time. M.Pflimlin did not think that the Contracting
Parties would be acting appropriately if they refused the inclusion of this
item on the Agenda.
Mr. THORP (United States) said that the French proposal embodied an
entirely now approach to the question of tariff reductions and as such would
have to be very carefully considered. This being the case it would be
unreasonable to expect that governments could act upon it with rapidity.
The United States delegation had communicated the proposal to its Government,
but in view of the importance of the question, he could not expect to receive
instructions before the end of the present Session. If the Contracting Parties
should decide to proceed to examine the French proposal, the United States
delegation regretted that it would be unable to participate in the discussions
in a responsible way or to make any commitment. On the other hand, it would be
equally undesirable for the question to be left open until the next Session.
The Working Party set up at Torquay, although generally thought of as a Party
dealing with European tariff problems, was in fact not purely regional and would
be the appropriate body to deal with a proposal of this nature. That Working
Party would indeed have great difficulties in performing its task if it were
made to feel that it was incompetent to deal with tariff questions except within
a very limited sphere. In conclusion, Mr. Thorp regretted that his delegation
could not undertake to participate on the basis of instructions in the study
of the French proposal at this Session and believed that the same must be true
of many other delegations.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India), agreeing with the United States representative,
indicated that his delegation would not be able to discuss the matter at
the present Session in the absence of definite instructions. Instead of
referring the proposal to the Working Party, it would be more desirable if the
French Government could further elaborate upon the proposal and transmit a more
detailed explanation through diplomatic channels to the contracting parties
so as to prepare then for discussion at the next Session.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) recalled that a number of governments
had concluded at Torquay that it would be expedient if the question could be
considered first within the European framework. During the discussion at the
Special Session in April, it was assumed that any reductions of tariffs resulting
from the work of the Working Party would be applied to all contracting parties
without discrimination. If the French proposal should be allowed to overshadow
the Working Party's efforts the earlier proposal regarding European tariffs
would be prejudiced. The Netherlands delegation had had precise instructions
to oppose any suggestion to refer the French proposal to the next Session,
as it was the considered opinion of his Government that that action would block
the way to any further progress that the existing Working Party might be
expected to make. Ho would also point out that seven of the fourteen members
of the Working Party on European Tariff Levels were non-European countries.
M. PFLIMLIN (France), with reference to the suggestions of the representatives
of the United States and India, agreed that to take up the question at present
might create difficulties for delegations which had had no opportunity of GATT/CP.6/SR.6
Page 5
consulting with their Governments, He proposed that the matter be deferred
for a few days for reflection and said that his delegation would net insist'
pFon its insertion in the gsenda.
kr. ISBISTER (Canada) thanked the French Delegation for its nmiitative in
making this important proposal. His delegation was attracted above all by
tho simplicity of the procedure envisaged in the proposal;if a falat reduction
by a fieod percentage coud k eo agreed upon, prompt progress intThereductionn
of tariffs could indeed be expected in contract with the protracted and laborious
process of detailed discussions involved in multilateral negotiation, Mullti-
lateral negotiations as a means of bringing about tariff reductions had been
found less and less effective, but this was not because the general situation
had so changed as to render the method no longer valid but because of one or
two specific difficulties. These difficulties were not limited to matters
relating to European countries, uMt the main obstacle in thewary of tariff
reductions by means of multilateral negotiations was the fact that certain
European countries with very low tariff levels had cone to the end of their
capacity to offer fresh concessions. The position of the Canadian Government
had boon made clear at Torquay and any solution which might be ageeod upon
for the European problem would receive the closest attention of the Canadian
Government. eo had not had an opportunity of referring the French proposal
to his Government for instructions, but would support the view that the
proposal should in the first instance be referred to the ineoreossional Working
Party on the ground that to proceed with the proposal independently of the
discussions of that Working Party would inevitably prejudice the work of the
group.
Teo meeting rose at 1.15 .m. ,(Discussion of the subject to be continued
at the next meeting)
..........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
GATT Library | wc843hx5482 | Summary Record of the Sixth Session : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.6/Corr.2 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wc843hx5482 | wc843hx5482_90270184.xml | GATT_140 | 164 | 1,224 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS RESTRICTED LIMITED B
ET LE COMMERCE GATT/CP.6/SR.6/Corr.2.
26 October l951
BILINGUALT
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SixthSesssion
SMAAMRY RECORD OF THE SIXTH SESSION
Corrigednmn
The delegation of Canada has requested that the following corrigndmmu be made:
Page 5
After the second sentence ("His delegatino mrultilatrlli negotiations".)
o rr.IIsbister's (Canada) statement add the following sentence:
"Whether such a proposal would be generally
acceptable to the Contracting Parties must
remain to be seen and his own Government
would undoubtedly encounter difficulties".
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Sxèèkme Session
COMPTE RENDU DE LA SILMMNE SEANCE
oarrigndumn
L édééegtaoen du Canada a eaanéée qe ulon Tpoopre àt e oocmpte rendu la corcc¢-
ooQn suivante:
pAèbs la seconed phrase ("L adééegtiaon canadienne......... laborieuses et pro-
lngoée"s) de l aéeclaration. de M. Isbister (Canada), ajouter la phrase uisvante:
"Il rese tà voir si cette prooestiion pourrait
t6re accetpée par l'ensemble des parties
contractantes et e .gouvernement canadin,p
pour sa part, renocntrerait certainement des
difficulée"., |
GATT Library | kw729mq7897 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.10 Corr.2 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kw729mq7897 | kw729mq7897_90270195.xml | GATT_140 | 270 | 1,896 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.6/SR.10 Corr.2
29 September 1951
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Page 8
The second sentence of Mr. Sveinbjørnsson's (Denmark) statement should read as.
follows:
"With respect to the remarks of the United States representative that his
Government would be prepared, if necessary to enter into consultations with
other contracting parties, Mr. Sveinbjørnsson said than he hoped that what Mr.
Thorp had had in mind was not that the United States would try to solve the
whole question simply by offering somewhat higher quotas to countries. Some
countries might perhaps be tempted to accept such a solution. The Danish dele-
gation had not, as others had, brought into this discussions the question of
the basis of the quotas, because Mr. Sveinbjørnsson felt that nothing short..."
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Sixième Session
COMPTE RENDU DE LA DIXIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum
Page 9
Lire comme suit la deuxième phrase de l'intervention de M. Sveinbjørnsson
(Danemark)
"A propos de ce qu'a dit le représentant des Etats-Unis, à savoir que sa
délégation acrait disposée à engager des consultations avec d'autres parties
contractantes, M. Sveinbjørnsson espère que M. Thorp n'a pas en vue que les
Etats-Unis essayeront de résoudre toute la question en offrant simplement aux
autres pays des contingents un peu plus élevés. Il est possible que certains
pays soient tentés d'accepter une telle solution. La délégation danoise n'a
pas, comme d'autres l'ontfait, introduit dans la discussion la question de
la base prise pour fixer les contingents, parce que M. Sveinbjørnsson estime
que seule.." |
GATT Library | sc326jq8289 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 28, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 28/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.10/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sc326jq8289 | sc326jq8289_90270194.xml | GATT_140 | 638 | 4,143 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/SR. l0/Corr. 1
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 28 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 3
The first paragraph under Item 2 should be replaced by the
following:
"Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) referred to the memorandum
submitted by his delegation (GATT/CP.6/28) which set out the reasons for
which his delegation had asked for inclusion of this item on the Agenda.
His delegation had been instructed to submit a complaint of nullification
and impairment in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article XXIII,
that is nullification and impairment not only of the concessions which had
been granted by the United States, but also of benefits arising from the
obligation undertaken by the United States under Article XI as well as
the nullification and impairment of the vigorous efforts made., pursuant
to the Marshall plan, by the Netherlands to become independent of outside
assistance at the earliest possible time. By far the worst consequences
of the United States measure would be its psychological effect on the
willingness of exporters of any goods to the United States further to
invest money and energy in the development of their markets in that, country.
These psychological effects were enhanced by the fact that the United
States, although having a largely protectionist tariffs always opposed on
principle quantitative restrictions on imports applied for protectionist
purposes.
"Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN believed it not an exaggeration to say that
the measure taken by the United States Government as a result of Section
104 of the Defence Production Act had caused great uneasiness in his
country, To be honest he would state that his Government was seriously
considering asking the Contracting Parties to authorise the suspension of
the application to the United States of certain concessions accorded to the
latter country as the outcome of previous negotiations. Quite apart from
such suspension, the reduced income of dollars from the restriction of
Netherlands' exports to the United States and Porto Rico must, of necessity,
reduce the Netherlands' ability to buy oranges, prunes, wheat-flour and
other products, which were now being imported from the United States in
great quantities. The measure taken by the United States could, therefore,
only lead to a reduction of the volume of trade, a result that the
Netherlands Government considered to be very regrettable." GATT/CP.6/SR.l0/Corr. 1
Page 2
Page 7
The first paragraph should read as follows:
"Mr. TUOMINEN (Finland) was also of the opinion that the provisions
of Article XI had been infringed and that stops should be taken in accordance
with Article XXIII. He produced figures to show that both Finnish pro-
duction and exports of choose had boon increased since the war as a result
of his Government's effort to expand exports to the prewar markets, But
although the total post-war exports of cheese had risen, the exports to the
United States had essentially decreased. Since the enactment of the Defence
Production Act, hopes for regaining that market had to be abandoned.
Finland was interested in not losing its prewar market in the United States
and would sincerely hope that the United States Government would see its way
to withdrawing these restrictions. Mr. Tuominon agreed with the Canadian
representative that there was no need to set up a working party."
Page8
The third paragraph should be replaced by the following:
"'Dr van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) thanked the United States
representative for his clear and full statement, but pointed out that
national constitutional rules should not be allowed to stand in the way of
the implementation of international agrooments. He proposed that the
Contracting Parties should take note of the statement by the United
States representative and, while awaiting further developments, should
retain this item on the Agenda of this session and, if necessary, for the
next session." |
GATT Library | vr880zz5059 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP16/SR.10/Corr.3 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vr880zz5059 | vr880zz5059_90270196.xml | GATT_140 | 214 | 1,344 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE. COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP16/SR.10/Corr .3
5 October 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 7
The last line of Mr. Thorp's statement on this page and the first two
lines on page 8 should be corrected to read as follows:
"Congress; it had been recommended by a committee not primarily
responsible for foreign affairs, The President of the United States,
while unable to veto the whole act in view of its importance to the
defence effort and the time factor,"
Page 8
Second paragraph in lines 8 and 9 delete the words:
"with a view to providing compensatory concessions".
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Sixième Session
COME RENDU DE LA DIZIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum.
Intervention de M. Thorp, ler alinéa, 12ème ligne, lire:
"... Congrès. Il a été par recommandé par une Commission qui n'est pas
principalement charge des affaires étrangères, Le Président des Etats-Unis
qui ne pouvaít pas imposer son veto à l'ensemble de la loi à cause de
importance que celle-ci présentait pour l'effort de défense et pour des
raisons de temps,"
2ème alinéa, 9ème et 10ème lignes, supprimer à la fin de la phrase lea mots:
"en vue de l'octroi de concessions compensatoires". |
GATT Library | wk866cs2904 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations,Geneva on Monday 24 September 1951 at 3.00 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.10 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wk866cs2904 | wk866cs2904_90270193.xml | GATT_140 | 4,475 | 28,457 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP .6/SR .10
TARIFFS AND TRADE 26 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations,Geneva
on Monday 24 September 1951 at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Article XX Time-Limit (Continued)
2. United States Restrictions on Dairy Products
1. Reconsideration of the Time-Limit Fixed in Part II of Article XX
(C/f. GATT/CP.5/32 and SR.16) (Continued from the previous meeting)
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway), supporting the statement by the United Kingdom
representative recalled that at the Fifth Session the United Kingdom and
Norway had favoured the proposal to replace the whole of Article XX of
the Agreement by Article 45 of the Havana Charter. A compromise solution
was adopted extending the time limit in Part II of the Article until
January 1 1952. The Norwegian delegation had drawn attention to the
different purposes of the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) and those of
paragraph (c). The problems with which paragraphs (a) and (b) were
intended to deal still persisted, and in addition to the shortage of raw
materials there were inflationary pressures in many countries which called
for remedial measures which could be applied under those provisions. The
Norwegian delegation was confident that the proposal to extend the time limit
for another two years to serve as an interim arrangement would be accepted by
the Contracting Parties without further study.
Mr. THORP (United States) said that, since the question had been thoroughly
studied at Torquay and had resulted in a solution which remained generally
acceptable to delegations, he believed the same solution should be used again
by extending the time limit for two years.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) indicated that his delegation would support a
further extension for a period of two years.
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark), referring to the deliberations at Torquay
in which a distinction was drawn between the provisions of paragraphs (a)
and (b) and those of paragraph (c), said that good reasons still obtained
for treating them separately. The validity of paragraphs (a) and (b) should
be extended without fixing a time limit so that the Contracting Parties could
raise the question at any time they deemed necessary. A time limit should,
however, be set far the applicability of paragraph (c) until January 1,
1953. This solution would serve to emphasise the temporary nature of Part II
of the Article. GATT/CP .6/SR.10
Page 2
Mr. SVEC (Czechoslovakia) felt that discussion had strayed far away from
the main purposes of the provisions of Part II of Article XX. The provisions
were intended to enable countries to deal with the legacy of the last world
war and not to accommodate shortages unconnected with it. Even if applicable
these provisions had not been observed in spirit or in letter; in particular
there had been scanty attention paid to the requirement regarding an equitable
international distribution of products in short supply. Such shortages as
existed could not be said to be shortages arising from the last war, and the
control of prices by some economically advanced countries had aimed at the
exploitation of underdeveloped raw materialproducing countries. Thus there
was a striking divergence between the existing fats and the principles. In
extending the time limit the Contracting Parties should see that these
provisions were strictly observed: first, there should be an equitable
distribution of materials in short supply, with perhaps the exception of
those products referred to in sub-paragraph (b) (i) and (ii) of Article XXI,
and secondly the interests of underdeveloped countries should be given more
attention than hitherto.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) was in favour of an extension being granted for
another year so that the whole question would come up automatically for study
at the next session. The extension, being of a temporary nature, could be
granted now, and perhaps again at the next session, without detailed con-
sideration.
M. LECUYER (France), recalling the position his delegation had taken at
Torquay, maintained that the three paragraphs under consideration. should
receive the same treatment with respect to any extension of the time limit.
The French delegation, to be consistent, would favour an extension until the
beginning of 1954, when the whole question should be re-examined.
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) said there appeared to be general agreement regarding
the question of extending the time limit. He agreed with the Danish
representative that it would be desirable to make a distinction between the
various provisions and to accord them different treatment, but the Swedish
delegation would not insist on consideration of this at the present time.
He would be ready to accept any solution including that of extending the time
for two years with respect to all three paragraphs.
Mr. AHMAD (Pakistan) was also in favour of extending the time limit
until January 1, 1954, for the whole of Part II of the Article.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) was agreeable to an extension of two years.
although he felt that some distinction should be made between paragraphs (a)
and (b) and paragraph (c).
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) supported the United Kingdom proposal for a
two-year extension, on the ground that the stringency arising out of the
war had not so improved as to render the provisions inapplicable.
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) said that although his delegation would
prefer the solution it had proposed, it would not press for further discussion. GATT/CP. 6/SR. 10
Page 3
A two-year extension for all the three paragraphs would be acceptable to
his delegation, provided it was understood that his Government reserved
its right to raise the question of different treatment for paragraphs (a)
and (b) and for paragraph (c) if during the two years a revision of the
Agreement should be considered.
The CHAIRMAN closing the discussion said that, subject to the
reservation of Sweden, Denmark and New Zealand, there had been general
agreement on an extension being granted for a period of two years. He
would request the Executive Secretary to prepare a draft resolution under
the provisions of Article XXV.
2. Restrictions on Imports of Dairy Products into the United States
(GATT/CP.6/28 & Add. 1)
X Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands), opening the discussion,
referred to the enactment in July by the United States Congress of Section
104 of the Defence Production Act of 1951, which empowered the United
States Government to restrict the import of dairy products and certain
other commodities. Consequently, the import of cheese and casein had
been restricted and the prohibition on the import of butter and milk
powder of low fat content had been continued, as required by this law.
The production and export of cheese for a very long time had been of
major importance to the Dutch economy. The export of cheese had been
much lower than pre-war, but improvements in the internal situation of
the Netherlands had enabled progressive increases in recent years. The
types of cheese which were exported to the United States were not
competitive with local production as they consisted of those types which
possessed particular qualities and were intended for sale to a special
category of buyers at higher prices. In fact the total import of cheese
into the United States was equivalent to less than one-twentieth of
United States domestic productions and, while domestic production in
1950 was 40% higher than the level in 1939, the quantity of this product
imported during that year was smaller than in pre-war days. The import
of casein into the United States had been increased between 1950 and 1951,
but this increase could not be maintained in face of these new restrictions.
The export of butter and milk powder to the United States, which was of
primary importance for the Netherlands producers, would also be made
impossible by the re-introduction of import prohibitions. Now, after
precious amounts of hard currency had been spent on the campaign to
secure the United States market, producers had been greatly discouraged
by this measure; it was now generally feared that any new initiative to
increase exports to the United States would meet with fresh obstacles
introduced by the importing country. In the opinion of the Netherlands
Government the quantitative restrictions and import prohibitions
introduced by the United States Government were, in the first place,
contrary to the principles of the General Agreement, in particular to
the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XI, and, secondly, would
greatly diminish the value of the concessions on butter, cheese and
casein which the United States had granted in p-u,.-". tariff negotiations.
The Netherlands Govornment had made known to the Government of the
United States, on August 16, its objections to these restrictions and had GATT/CP. 6/SR.10
Page 4
therefore acted in accordance with Article XXIII of the Agreement.
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) drew attention to the written state-
ment submitted by his delegation (GATT/CP.6/28) and emphasised that his
Government had found it beyond doubt that the import restrictions imposed
by the United States Government on cheese wore inconsistent with Article XI
of the Agreement; the Agreement did not provide for the introduction of
quantitative restriction's for the purpose of protecting fully-developed
and well-established industries. He agreed with the Canadian representative,
Mr. Howe, who remarked in his speech on September 17 that "it was obvious
that defence production and national security would seem to have little
connection with the import control of cheese". In its efforts to
expand exports to the United States, the Danish Government had derived
much benefit from the United States Marshall Aid, and some of its export
industries had been given encouragement to expand on the basis of advises
from the Economic Cooperation Administration authorities. At Annecy,
the United States had agreed to lower the import duty on this product
from 25% to 15%. It was indeed confusing that, after all these favourable
developments, the United States Government should see fit to introduce
import restrictions on this very product. While not applying for an
authority to withdraw concessions originally made to the United States,
the Danish Delegation would request the Contracting Parties to consider
whether the new restrictions were contrary to the letter and spirit of
the Agreement. Even though Danish exports of cheese to the United States
were insignificant as compared with United States production, the Danish
delegation would not accept the contention that restrictions would be
justified if imports of this product from Denmark and other countries
should exceed a certain level. Along with many other international
conventions the General Agreement had, for its main purpose, the furthering
of free competition and liberalization of trades objectives on which no
other country had put more emphasis than the United States. The present
case, apart from its effects on the industries and countries directly
affected, had an overall importance in being a test case directly bearing
on the general economic policy of the United States. The way in which
the question was solved by the Contracting Parties would therefore be of
tromondous interest and it was only to be hoped that these restrictions
would be promptly withdrawn since no other solution would restore belief
in the future of the Agreement.
Mr. COPPOLA D'ANNA (Italy) pointed out that Italy had been
directly affected by the measure, especially in view of the basic period
chosen for the application of those restrictions. 1948, 1949 and 1950
were lean years as far as Italiain export of cheese was concerned; the
average export of cheese to the United States in those years amounted to
5,000 tons as compared with the pre-war average of 11,500 tons. The
reasons behind this measure were not comprehensible or appreciated in Italy,
since the kinds of cheese exported by Italy to the United States were all
of a special type and were destined for a special market. In exchange for the
tariffconcession made by the United States on this product Italy had
given compensatory concessions during past negotiations, which had thus
been impaired within the meaning of Article XXIII of the Agreement.
Furthermore the Italian delegation considered that the measure was incon-
sistent with the principles and provisions of the General Agreement and GATT/CP. 6/SR. 10
Page 5
sincerely hoped that the United States Government would reconsider its
position with a view at least to mitigating the damaging effects.
Mr. PRESS (New Zealand) associated himself with the statements
made by the previous speakers. He emphasised that his Government
considered this to be the most important item on the Agenda of this
session and believed nothing less than the whole future of the agreement
was involved. Taking account of the important role played by the United
States, in conjunction with the United Kingdom, in the furthering of the
principles embodied in the Agreement, such a serious departure from both
the spirit and letter of the Agreement could not but cause great concerns
Considerable damage had been done to the Agreement in view of the
ammunition which would be provided to its critics who were thus enabled
to reinforce their argument that two sorts of justice existed for the
contracting parties. New Zealand had in recent years made rapid progress
in relaxing its import controls and in so far as these restrictions
reduced her dollar earnings they would affect the further progress which
could be made towards the final goal of multilateral trade. Moreover
the psychological effect referred to by the Netherlands representative
had been tremendous even where the real interests involved wore
comparatively small. The New Zealand delegation proposed to continue
discussion with the United States under Article XXIII of the Agreement
on the grounds that benefits which should accrue to New Zealand directly
or indirectly had been injured by the introduction of these restrictions.
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) also supported the foregoing statements.
Although the export of choose was not of vital importance to Norway, his
Government had endeavoured to promote this trade with the United States
as a part of its general effort to solve the dollar problem. Norway and
Italy had obtained concessionson this product from the United States at
Torquay, only to be nullified by these restrictions. The measure was
contrary to the bilateral agreement reached between Norway and the
United States at Torquay, as well as to the provisions of Article XI of
the General Agreement. The issue depended very much on the action to be
taken by the United States Government in the near future, and it was hoped
that a solution could be found during this session. In case, however,
that a solution were not envisaged a working party could be instituted,
under Article XXIII of the Agreement, to study the question and make
recommendations regarding appropriate action which the United States
Government would be asked to take.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) reminded the meeting that, in addition
to cheeses the restrictions and prohibitions affected butter, milk powder
and casein. This impairment and nullification of the concessions granted by
the United States to New Zealand and Australia in 1947 had hindered the
proper marketing arrangements made by the two Governments. The Australian
Government had addressed an aide mémoire to the United States Government,
which should be considered as the initiation of consultation under
Article XXIII of the Agreement. His delegation hoped that the United
States Government would be able to take steps within the near future,
with a view to removing its imports prohibition on butter, as well as on
the other products. GATT/CP.6/SR. 10
Page 6
M. LECUYER (France) stated that the French Government had
communicated with the United States Government on this subject on
August 30. The interest which his Government had in this question was of
a different nature. Since France only exported special kinds of cheese
to the United States which were sold at a price twice as high as that of
other kinds of choose, there was little competition between the French
exports and the United States product. The basic period chosen by the
United States for the purposes of the restrictions was particularly unfair
since the French exports to the United States in those years were about only
one half of the corresponding quantities in pre-war years. It was worth
noting that United States exports were also indirectly affected since the
curtailment of imports had caused the French Government to buy fewer
Californian oranges. The measure was therefore damaging to the interests
of both countries. It was hoped that the United States Government would
be able to dispense with this measure as soon as possible.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) agreed with the statements which had been
made by all the previous speakers and in particular with the representative
of Denmark that the introduction of these restrictions would not be
regarded simply as an isolated instance affecting the interests of
particular producers or particular countries, but would be taken as a
significant case with far-reaching implications and ramifications. Not
only were the provisions of the General Agreement contravened, but benefits
which should accrue to contracting parties had been impaired and in some
instances totally nullified. The Canadian Government had on two occasions
exchanged concessions with the United States Government on a wide scope and,
until this measure was introduced, there had been no complaint by either
party about any impairment. It was therefore particularly regrettable
that this should have happened. In the past, when unforeseen circumstances
had given rise to difficulties between them, the Canadian and the United
States Gcvernments had always been ready to examine the facts, but in the
present case it had been difficult to find any grounds for the action
whatsoever. Whereas a year or so ago a surplus of dairy products had been
accumulating in the United States and sold at support prices, there was
at present every indication of a strong market, with surplus stocks being
constantly reduced, sometimes even to the vanishing point. But, as had
been indicated by previous speakers, these facts as well as any statistics
were not of direct relevance to the case since the fundamental point
was that the provisions of the Agrement had been infringed. On the other
hand it should be noted that prompt steps had been taken by the admnis-
trative branch of the United Staeos Govrnment to seek rectification of
the anomalous situation. Whether the Canadian delegation would lodge a
formal complaint would therefore depend on developments. His delegation
had entered into consultation with the United States delegation in the
manner envisaged in Article XXIII and would seek redress through the
Contracting Parties only if and when this consultation should fail to
produce a satisfactory solution. Any such application would be made at a
sufficiently early date for the Contracting Parties to consider it at the
present session. In conclusion, Mr. Isbister suggested that this item
should be kept on the Agenda for the time being. He disagreed with the
Norwegian proposal that a working party should be set up to examine the
question, since no differences regarding factual details existed such as to
require closer examination. GATT/CP. 6/SR.10
Page 7
Mr. TUOMINEN (Finland) was also of the opinion that the provisions
of Article XI had been infringed and that stops should be taken in
accordance with Article XXIII. He produced figures to show that both
Finnish production and exports of cheese had been increased since the war
as a result of his Government's effort to expand exports to the United
States. Since the enactment of the Defence Production Act, hopes for
expanding that market had to be abandoned. Finland was only interested
in not completely losing its prewar markets and would sincerely hope that the
United States Government would see its way to withdrawing these restrictions.
Mr. Tuominen agreed with the Canadian representative that there was no
need to set up a working party.
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) said that, although these measures
did not materially affect his country's interests, his Government attached
great importance to the question in view of the fundamental principles
involved. Apart from the effects these restrictions might have on the export
interests of European countries, the United Kingdom Government was deeply
concerned that the provisions of the Agreement should be observed by all
adhering countries. It was far from clear how these measures could be
reconciled with the provisions of Article XI or indeed with the general
objectives of the Agreement. It was therefore appropriate that the
Contracting Parties should express their views as clearly as possible, as
had been done at this meeting. Their desire to see prompt and effective
remedial action by the United States should be conveyed to that Government.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said that he was impressed by the
pertinent statements made by the other delegations, which had strongly and
appropriately expressed their views on the action taken by the United
States. His country did not particularly suffer from the measure in
question, but he hoped that the Contracting Parties would always be
prepared to defend the spirit of the General Agreement.
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) stated that in the light of the discussion
he wished to withdraw the proposal he had made for the appointment of a
working party. He agreed with the Canadian representative that the matter
should be retained on the Agenda for further discussion if necessary.
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) associated himself with the statement by the
United Kingdom representative regarding the importance of observing the
principles of the General Agreement.
Mr. THORP (United States) felt that the view he had expressed at
the time when this item was considered for inclusion on the Agenda, that
it was an appropriate item for discussion at this session had been borne
out by the proceedings of this meeting. To explain the circumstances in
which the question had arisen, he pave a short description of the
constitution of the American Government which was based on the principle
of a division of powers. The Defence Production Act was a comprehensive
piece of legislation covering a wide range of provisions designed to meet
the present emergency. The Section 104 in question had been included in
the Bill as an amendment at the last stage of its enactment without
receiving proper consideration by the responsible committees of the
Congress; it had been recommended by a committee which had limited GATT/CP. 6/SR. 10
Page 8
acquaintance with international problems. The President of the United
States, while unable to vz&, the whole Act in view of the time factor,
had indicated his objection to certain of its provisions, including those
of Section 104, and had later sent a message to Congress to indicate his
dissatisfaction with these provisions. On August 29 the Secretary of State
submitted a specific request to the chairman of the appropriate committees
of Congress for the repeal of Section 104. Hearings were hold on this
subject on August 31, in which Mr. Thorp, together with the Under Secretary
of Agriculture, testified strongly in support of the repeat . (The
statements made by Mr. Thorp and Mr. McCormick before the committee were
to be circulated to the Contracting Parties in GATT/CP.6/28/Add. 1). On
September 20, the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, after carrying
out further hearings through a sub-committee, submitted its report to the
Senate in favour of the proposed repeal. If favourable action were taken
by the Senate it was to be expected that the bill repealing that Section
would get through the House of Representatives without delay.
In the light of these facts Mr. THORP wished to present two
conclusions. First, vigorous efforts had been made by the executive
branch of his Government for the repeal of Section 104. Some time might be
needed for the repeal to cone into effect and his delegation hoped that
the Contracting Parties would appreciate the efforts and give his
Government an opportunity to complete its action; should these efforts
not result in a satisfactory solution his Government would be prepared
immediately to enter into consultation with tile Contracting Parties with
a view to providing compensatory concessions. Secondly, this episode must
be regarded as an isolated incident and must not be held as an indication
of any reorientation of the basic policy of the United States, which had
not changed since the renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Act early this year.
The manner in which the amendment of the Act was passed by Congress
clearly indicated that it was not a considered revision of the basic
policy of the United States.
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) thanked the United States
representative for his cloar and full statement and proposed that the
Contracting Parties should take note of the statement by the United
States representative and, while awaiting further developments,
should retain this item on the Agenda of this session and, if necessary,
for the next session./
Mr. VELINBØWRNSSON (enmark) ls1o thanked the United States
representative for his interesting statmrent, and agreed with the proposal
of the Netherlands representative.X With respect to the remarks of the
United States representative that his delegation would be prepared to
enter into consultation, Mr. Sveinbø?rnsson felt that it would not be in
accordance with the General Agreement oc follow such a course; nothing
short of the abolition of the restrictive measures would be satisfactory
since what was involved was not merely amnatter of interests but a
question of principle. It was also hoped that the unanimous opinion
expressed by the Contracting Parties would bo reported yY the United States
delegation to its Government. GATT/CP .6/SR.10
Page 9
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the discussion, outlined the thee
conclusions which had been reached. First, there was general agreement that
Section 104 of the Defence Production Act was an infringement of Article
XI of the General Agreement. That the provisions of that Article were
contravened was accepted by the United States delegation, and, to
rectify the situation, the executive branch of the United States
Government was taking serious efforts to get the repeal of that Section.
Secondly, it was clear that if these efforts should fail to produce
satisfactory results the matter would have to be considered under Article
XXIII ot the Agreement regarding impairment and nullification; this might
involve withdrawals of concessions by other contracting parties; and it
was hoped that this would not prove to be necessary. Thirdly, several
representatives had pointed out that the outcome of this important test
case might affect the attitude of many contracting parties to the future
application of the General Agreement, On this point the United States
representative had submitted that enactment of Section 104 of that Act
should not be regarded as a considered acticn by the United States
representing a change of policy.
The CHAIRMAN restated the proposal that (a) this item should be
retained on the Agenda for the time being, and (b) consideration should
be given at the end of the session, in the light of the circumstances then
prevailing, to the question whether it should be placed on the Agenda
for the next session.
This was agreed.
The meeting rose at 7 p.m.
?0
7 |
GATT Library | fy809qk9938 | Summary Record of the Third Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, May 22, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 22/05/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.3/Corr.1 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fy809qk9938 | fy809qk9938_90270170.xml | GATT_140 | 220 | 1,519 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RSTRICTED
LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CPS/SR.3/Corr. 1
22 May 1951
ORIGINAL: FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTS
Special Session, 1951
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRD MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 6, paragraph 4 :
The statement by Mr. Cassiers should read:
"Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that there had never been any idea
of establishing a preferential system or denying the most-favoured-
nation principles. Nevertheless, there was one principle which any
proposed solution should disregard - that of the reciprocity and
equality of concessions. Concessions granted only in return for
equivalent concessions would not resolve the problem of tariff
disparity. Perhaps the point of the Chairman and the Canadian
representative could be met by the addition at the end of sub-
paragraph (b) of the words 'which will be in conformity with the
general objectives of the Agreement?,"
Page 7, paragraph 1:
Mr. LECUYER (France)
Replace the second sentence by the following:
"He recalled, however, that, as the Chairman had indicated
solutions other than those envisaged in the present meetings could
be sought - for example solutions along the line of the Schuman Plan.
But it was clear that such studies could not be undertaken by the
proposed Working Party and, as was the case with the Schuman Plan
itself, should became the object of special action before the
Contracting Parties ." |
GATT Library | sf203zk2159 | Summary Record of the Third Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 25, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP. 6/SR. 3/Corr and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sf203zk2159 | sf203zk2159_90270178.xml | GATT_140 | 77 | 513 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS
AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/SR. 3/
Corr.
25 September 1951
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRD MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 2. 2nd paragraph
Dr. BOTHA'S name should be replaced by Mr. PANSEROUW.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Sixieme Session
COMPTE RENDU DE LA TROISEME SEANCE
Le nom de M. BOTHA doit être remplaé par ceíui de M. PANSEGROUW.
Page 2. paragraphe ler |
GATT Library | hs262hz0058 | Summary Record of the Third Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Saturday, 31 March 1951 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 11, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/04/1951 | official documents | GATT/CPS/SR.3 and GATT/CPS/SR.1-5 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hs262hz0058 | hs262hz0058_90270169.xml | GATT_140 | 3,488 | 22,053 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CPS/SR. 3
TARIFFS AND TRADE 11 April 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Special Session, 1951
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRD MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on
Saturday, 31 March 1951 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. J. MELANDER (Norway)
SubJect discussed: Problem of the disparity of
European tariffs (continued)
The CHAIRMAN resumed the discussion on the proposal for
the establishment of a working party, contained in document
GATT/CP/103. The main points to be decided were (1) whether
a working party of the Contracting Parties should be
established; (2) its membership; (3) its terms of reference;
(4) the meeting place, and (5) its relationship with other
.bodies. It already appeared from the general discussion
which had taken place that there was agreement that a GATT
working party should be established.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) said that his
agreement on this point depended, of course, on the terms of
reference and membership.
The CHAIRMAN said that this was understood.
(2) Membership:
Mr. MOORE (United States) proposed an amendment to
paragraph 2 to allow the working party to invite member
countries of the OEEC not members of GATT to take part in
its work.
Mr. COHEN (United Kingdom) considered it difficult to
settle the membership before the terms of reference. He
felt hesitant in any case about a suggestion for non-contracting
parties to take part in the working party. GATT/CPS/SR. 3
Page 2.
The CHAIRMAN, on two questions of order, considered,
firstly that a preliminary discussion on membership could
usefully take place at this stage and, secondly, that,
although the Memorandum signed by the ten countries could
clearly not be amended as such by the Contracting Parties,
it could, however, for the purposes of the present discussions
be considered as a draft resolution.
Mr. AHMAD (Pakistan) wondered why a departure from the
normal GATT procedure for the establishment of working
parties, whereby working parties were composed of all the
countries directly interested and three or four disinterested
parties, was being requested.
Mr. MOORE (United States) proposed three further amend-
ments to the terms of reference, first, the insertion of a
preamble, second the amendment of paragraph 3(b) .so as to
specify Article 6 of the OEEC convention and third, that
any proposal made by the working party should conform to
the principles of the General Agreement.
Mr. ROHAC (Czechoslovakia) thought it difficult to discuss
the membership until the type of working party were agreed
upon. At present it appeared to him that two quite different
working parties were being proposed. The Memorandum of the
ten countries proposed a working party of restricted member-
ship to deal with a particular problem. The United Kingdom
proposal was for a normal GATT working party to deal with the
wider problem which was of interest to the Contracting
Parties as a whole.
The CHAIRMAN thought there was no question of excluding
any contracting parties from membership in the working party.
The discussion was now centred on whether non-GATT members
should be invited to participate as provided for in the
United States amendment.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) referred to the question
raised by the representative of Pakistan. The proposals for
the composition of the working party had been based on the
idea that it would deal with the equalisation of European
tariffs on a multilateral basis rather than by mutual
concessions, and all interested countries would naturally
have to take part. This might include some OEEC countries
who were not members of the GATT but, apart from the United
States and Canada, there were very few non-European countries
with a specific interest in the operation. There was no
desire, however, on the part of the European countries to be
exclusive, and if other contracting parties wished to take
part in the working party, it should be possible. Their
position must be made quito clear however, since they would
presumably not be engaged in the revelling process. GATT/CPS/SR.3
Page 3.
Mr. DESAI (India) thought it illogical to establish
a GATT working party which would exclude certain contracting
parties an .inelude certain non-contracting parties.
M.0 S9OLBERG (Norway) thought that if this problem. were
approached as primarily a GATT:rather than an OEEC one,
there should be no objection, to other than European countries
.being members o ;the working party:. That had, after all,
shown considerable interest.in the problem.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that further discussion of
iembership wait setlcement of the terms of reference.
(3) Teams of Reference: :
Mr. COHEN (United Kingdom) proposed th 'following changes
in the terms of reference contained in GATT/CP/103.
Paragraphs a), b) and c) of the United Kingdom proposal
(GATT/CPS4+) should. be inserted before sub-paragraph 3 a);
paragraph d) in GATT/CPS4+, with the alteration of the last
phrase of (i) to read "tariffs of countries associated with
the OEEC" should be substituted for sub-paragraph 3 a);
sub-paragraph b) should be deleted and c) slightly amended.
Mr. SOLBERG (Norway) preferred the present wording of
paragraph 3, except for sub paragraph b) in which he proposed
deleting the references to. the OEEC and substituting the
"objectives of the GATT.O A working party of the contracting
parties which would contain non-OEE ;members could hardly
consider the problem from the viewpoint of the OEMC.
Mr. ROHAC (Czechoslovakia) thought that if the objectives
of the OEEC .and the GATT were identical it was superfluous
to refer to the former. If they wer -no,9 a GATT working
party could hardly be instructed to take them into account.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) did not object to the inclusion of
paragraphs a), b), and. c) o -the United Kingdom proposal, but
considered the retention of sub-paragraph b) of the memorandum
essential Support for all efforts t .eliminate barriers to
trade was a fundamental principle of GATT. While, in one
sense, the problem could be looked upon as a purely regional
one which should be settled by the countries concerned before
it came before the Contracting Parties, the wider interest
of the Agreement itself was involved because the problem of
high and low tariff countries was a general one and the
,present procedures of th . Agreement were evidently incapable
of dealnrg with it. The OEEC had found that the trade
liberalization 'programme. could not be separated from tariff
barriers and the problem of disparities in tariff, levels.
had consequently become one of imrediat .urgency to the
European countries. TheOQEEC had decided to refer this
problem to the Contracting Parties, despite objections that GATT/CPS/SR.3
Page 4.
the machinery of the Agreement was not suitable for a problem
the solution of which depended on the idea of equalisation
rather than of equal exchange of benefits, with no compulsion
to make concessions except in payment for other concessions.
It had been found in Torquay that, although the OEEC govern-
ments had undertaken to instruct their delegations to take
account of the problem of high and, low tariff countries in
the tariff negotiations, this had not in reality had any
effect on the negotiations, Furthermore, the. rule regarding
the binding of a low rate of duty had scarcely been applied.
In fact, it was by now evident that the procedures of the
Agreement were no longer adequate to the situation. The
proposal of the ten countries then was that a working party
examine the disparities of tariffs and methods 'of improving
the present procedures of the Agrecment, recognizing that the
urgent immediate problem was the European one. The Contracting
Parties were asked to assist them in this task in view of
their experience of tariff matters, If there were no
obligation on the part of the Contracting Parties to do so,
it must nevertheless be pointed out that, without their
assistance, the European countries wotild have no alternative
but to attempt to settle the problem within the OEEC with
possible consequences to the multilateral and most-favoured-
nation principles of the Agreement.
With regard to other parts of the United Kingdom
proposal, M. CASSIERS preferred that there should be no time :
limit for the presentation of the report of the working party,
and considered Paris a more suitable place than Geneva for
its work.
The CHAIRMAN asked for the views of the meeting on the
proposal to amend paragraph 3 (a) to read as paragraph (d) of
the United Kingdom proposal.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN considered that the United Kingdom
proposal, by eliminating any reference to Europe, would
result in consideration by the working party of a totally
different problem than that listed on the agenda. He would
not oppose a discussion of the general problem, but it should
then be under another agenda item. The question at issue was
whether the Agreement was capable of dealing with a purely
regional problem or whether the European countries would have
to deal with this problem within their own organisation of
the OEEC.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) agreed that the item on the
agenda was. the disparity of European tariff levels, but
referred to the United Kingdom oral amendment of paragraph
(d)(i) to "countries associated with the OEEC". This was
quite close to the proposal in the Memorandum. GATT/CPS/SR.3
Page 5
Mr. PAPADIAKIS (Greece) and Mr. CLARK (Australia) supported the
the United Kingdom amendment.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) nevertheless continued
to oppose the United Kingdom amendment. The words "associated
with the OEEC" would include the United States and Canada, and
it had not been the intention of the countries who signed the
Memorandum to discuss disparities between European and Canadian
and United States tariffs. Furthermore the United States and
Canada had made it quite clear that, although they might be
willing to make compensatory concessions they could not take
part in any levelling process,
Mr, MOORE (United States) suggested that the words be
altered to read "countries which are members of the OEEC".
Mr7 REISMAN (Canada) and Mr. GISLE (Sweden) supported the
proposal as amended by the United States.
Mr, COHEN (United Kingdom) said that although they had
hoped by their wording to allow the working party a maximum
of flexibility he would not insist if the United States and
Canada felt unable to accept that wording,
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN said that, apart from this changes
there were a number of minor alterations which it was difficult
to assess at such short notice. The original draft had been,
as the United Kingdom was well aware, the result of a very
difficult compromise and until he was convinced that the altered
wording did not alter the sense, he must continue to oppose the.
amendment.
M, CASSIERS (Belgium) supported this view and referred
particularly to the insertion of the word "significant" before
"disparities in the tariffs" although the word "significant"
was not used in referring, to disparities in the economic and
social structures of the different countries.
The CHAIRMAN found that there was certain support for the
United Kingdom amendment as amended by the United States and
proposed to close the discussion on 3(a) for the time being and
proceed to 3(b), Amendments to this sub-paragraph had been
suggested by the United States and Norway and the United Kingdom
had proposed its complete deletion.
Mr. COHEN (United Kingdom) explained that in their view this
paragraph added nothing to what was already provided for in the
previous paragraph. If, however, reference were to be made to
the OEEC he preferred the wording of the United States amendment
which referred specifically to Article 6 of the OEEC Convention,
He also thought that whatever Decisions of the OEEC were to be
taken into account should be specified. Page 6.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) considered that a development and
extension of the principles and procedures relating to tariffs
which would at the same time retain the basic principles of the
Agreement wore essential to the solution of the European problem,
It was also necessary for European countries in considering their
own problem to bear in mind the purposes and principles of the
OEEC" He therefore opposed any wording that would confine the
Working Party strictly to the actual procedures of the Havana
Charter or the Agreement,
The CHAIRMAN thought that there was a substantive difference
between paragraph 3(b) as contained in document GATT/CP/103 and
3(b) as amended by the United States. The amendment meant that
the working party should seek solutions within the existing
principles and rules of the Agreement, i.e., either through
customs unions or free trade areas or by means of obtaining
concessions from countries outside of Europe to enable
reductions in European tariffs to be applied on a non-discrimina-
tory basis. The original document however, opened the
possibility for the working party to seek solutions which would
not at the present time be in conformity with the Agreement,
perhaps along the lines of the Schuman Plan, involving some sort
of preferential system. The Contracting Parties should realise
that the original paper opened possibilities of solutions
which would involve either amendment to the agreement o.. general
waivers.
Mr. .REISMAN (Canada) said that paragraph 3(b) had given his
delegation much difficulty precisely for the reasons set forth
by the Chairman. In supporting the proposal to establish a
working party the Canadian Delegation was in favour of a real
effort to overcome the disparities in European tariffs in
accordance with the most-favoured-nation multilateral principles
of the Agreement. He would support the intent of the United
States proposal, but thought that words might possibly be found
to meet the proposal of the Belgian representative that the
procedures of the GATT might be altered while retaining the
principles.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that there had never been any
idea of establishing a preferential system or denying the most-
favoured-nation principles. He considered that there was one
principle of the Agreement, however, that should not be invoked
against any solution that might be found and that was the
principle that concessions were granted only in return for
equivalent concessions, Perhaps the point of the Chairman and
the Canadian representative could be met by the addition at the
end of sub-paragraph (b) of the words "which will be in conformity
with the general objectives of the Agreement". GATT/CPS/SR.3
Page 7
M. LECTUYER (France) had no objection either to the United
States or the Belgian amendment. The possibility of f inding
a solution, along the lines of the Schumann Plan should be
envisaged, although not of course by a GATT working party.
Mr. MOORE (United States) agreed to the Belgian amendment.
Mr. ROHAC (Czechoslovakia) said that paragraph 3(b)
appeared to give the working party the opportunity to consider
procedures which might contravene the principles of the Agree-
ment, The Contracting Parties should oppose any such intention.
A situation might arise whereby a contracting party found that
the present wording of the Agreement. was causing it difficulty
and this would of course be considered sympathetically by the
Contracting Parties, but no working party should be set up to
consider proposals that. were outside the scope of the Agreement
since one of the main duties of the Contracting Parties was to
safeguard these principles.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN supported the Belgian amendment. The
discussions showed some fear that the working party was intended
to find solutions which would be opposed to the rule of non-
discrimination. He wished to make it clear that the original
Benelux proposals, as well as the Memorandum had consistently
tried to find a solution to this problem that would be non-
discriminatory .and in accodance with the principles of the
Agreement. If it proved impossible to obtain a lovelling of the
European tariffs within the principles of the Agreement some
countries might be forced to look for other solutions but they
would certainly not do so do in a working party of the Contracting
Parties.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the Contracting Parties must be
clear as to the terms of reference and considered the word
"objectives" rather vague. The point at issue was whether the
working party should be allowed to evolve proposals which might
be contrary to the principles of the Agreement.
Mr. DESAI (India) thought that the reference to the OEEC
might be eliminated and "European" tariffs specified. If any
othe proposals were involved, they should be set out in specific
terms.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) said that so long as the
countries were parties to the Agreement they would, of course,
keep to its rules.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) reported that there was no intention
to evolve proposals contrary to the Agreement. It was, however,
quite another thing to say that the proposals must be in
accordance. with the procedures of the e,eAgenm,iiince.nec these
could be improvednupo,.' GATT/CPS/SR.3
Page 8
The CHAIRMAN thought there appeared to be a fundamental
difference as to the terms of reference. Certain contrating
parties felt that the working party should be empowered to make
proposals which, although within the objectives of the OEEC and
the General Agreement, might be against the principles of the
latter while other contracting parties felt that the proposals
must be in strict accord with the principles of the Agreement.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) felt that, after the Netherlands
representatives statement asserting their intention to maintain
the most-favoured-nation principle agreement on substance, if
not on the drafting, of the terms of reference was close.
The CHAIRMAN suggested leaving this paragraph and proceeding
to 3 (c).
The United Kingdom suggestion that the report appear a
month before the Sixth Session began was Agreed.
Mr. COHEN (United Kingdom) referred to the three paragraphs
a) b) and c) which the United Kingdom had suggested be inserted
into the terms of reference. A concession as to the present
working of the negotiating procedures had been expressed by
certain delegations; it was for this reason precisely that his
Delegation had suggested a general investigation of these
procedures.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) considered the proposals
of paragraphs a), b) and c) of the United Kingdom proposal out
of order. They would broaden the scope of the Working party so
far beyond the intent of the item on the Agenda as to make it
impossible to deal with the subject on the Agenda.
The CHAIRMAN said that he could not rule and amendment to
the terms of reference out of order.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) wondered whether the general steady
proposed by the United Kingdom could not be placed on the
agenda of the Sixth Session. He agreed on the importance of the
question, but considered that it would lay too heavy a burden
on the proposed working party.
Mr. COHEN (United Kingdom) suggested that the difficulty
might be met by splitting the Working party into two sections -
one to deal with negotiating procedures and one to deal with the
specific European problem. This would also solve the question
of membership since the non-European members would beSpeciially
interested in the first problem. The overall problem of
roocedures would thas eo studie by a GATT working prvty at the
same time as the specific one and co-ordinated recmrmendations
could be hoped fo., GATT/CPS/SR.
Page 9.
Mr. MOORE (United States) thought that the problems set
out in paragraphs a), b) and c) were of a kind which might in
any case arise during the course of the discussion of the
European problem. It would perhaps be more effective to focus
the working party discussion on the European problem. The
wider problem could then be raised at the Sixth Session where
a somewhat different working party might be established to deal
with it.
Mr. ROHAC (Czechoslovakia) supported the inclusion of the
three paragraphs in the terms of reference of the Working
party. These were precisely the aspects of the question which
would enable other countries to make a useful contribution to
the Working Party, and they would not impair the interests of
the OEEC countries.
Mr. SOLBERG (Norway), Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands)
and M. LECUYER (France) supported the Belgian and United States
proposal to defer this problem to the Sixth Session.
Mr. DESAI (India) supported the inclusion of the three
paragraphs proposed by the United Kingdom. The investigation
must be as to why and in what way the GATT procedures were
inadequate to solve the specific problem of European tariffs
and to what extent any remedies proposed would fall within the
principles of the Agreement. If the terms of reference of the
Working Party were confined only to the European aspect of the
problem there was no reason to set up a GATT working party;
but if the Contracting Parties themselves were to try to find a
solution, the terms of reference of the working party must be
sufficiently general to allow it to work out general principles
and procedures on which to base a specific solution.
Mr. COHEN (United Kingdom) agreed with the Indian repre-
sentative, and did not see what real objections there were to
the insertion of these three paragraphs. If it was genuinely
desired to find a solution to the problem, the Contracting
Parties could not afford to neglect the empirical study which
was proposed.
The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. |
GATT Library | jd639zj4457 | Summary Record of the Third Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Tuesday, 18 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 19, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 19/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.3 and GATT/CP.6/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jd639zj4457 | jd639zj4457_90270177.xml | GATT_140 | 3,289 | 21,598 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/SR.3
TARIFFS AND TRADE 19 September 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRD MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Tuesday, 18 September 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects dissussed: 1. United Kingdom Schedules (continued)
2. Rectification of Schedules
3. Consolidation of Schedules
4. South Africa Germany tariff negotiations
5. Continuing Administration of the Agreement
The Geneva and Annecy Schedules of the United-Kingdom transposed
in accordance with the Brussels Convention-Nomenclature (GATT/CP/1Ol
and Add.1 and GATT/CP6/16) (continued from the previous meeting)
Mr. SVEC (Czechoslovakia) said that the schedules submitted by the United
Kingdom had been examined by experts in the Czechoslovak delegation and had been
found correct and acceptable. His delegation would therefore support the pro-
posal that these schedules be adopted to replace the old ones.
The CHAIRMAN suggested, and the Contracting Parties agreed, that the
schedules should be submitted to the proposed working party which was to be
constituted to deal with all questions relating to schedules. In answer to a
question by Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom), the Chairman, after ascertaining the views
of the contracting parties, affirmed that the proposal by the United Kingdom dele-.
gation regarding the October 1 time-limit for the submission of observations on
the schedules had been approved.
2. Rectification of Schedules (GATT/CP.6/4 and Add.1 and 2)
The CHAIRMAN proposed that this matter be forthwith entrusted to the
aforementioned Working Party on Schedules. It was so agreed.
3, Consolidation of Geneva. Annecy and Torguay Schedules. Approval of
text for publication (GATT/CP.6/21)
The CHAIRMAN suggested similarly that the matter be referred forthwith
to the Working Party on Schedules, This was agreed. GATT, C.6, W'', 3
Page 2
M. ROYER Deputy Executive Secretary) drew attention to certain matters
relating to the preparation of the consolidated Schedules. It was intended.
that the Schedules would be published in two series of volumes, one in
English and the other in French. Delegation which would require assistance
from the Secretariat in the translation of their schedules were requested
to indicate as soon as possible any such requirement; and firm orders for
printed apics should be placed well in advance of publication.
4. Incorporation in Schedules XVIII and XXXIII of the Concessions
Exchanged by South Africa and Germany Negotiations
Conducted in August 1951 (GATT/CP.6/22)
' (GI
Af Af (Union of South 'Xrica), referring to the notes contained in
GATT/CP.6/22, explained that tme Union of South Africa and Gernany, which
gotiations unegotiions aare iL zoic.tiki2 at Torquay, had since then
successfully conauded negotiations and anchanged coaacssions in accordetee
with the princeples aneeprec.dureseef the Genoral Agrooment, The two
Gogcrd ats nould be alae' if ake Contrrctiag Parties could mrze appropriate
arra gmeents for the incorpration of-thse concessions into their
esjoctevo schedulee Dr. Botha.proposcd that this procedural question
shouPad be reanrrpd to.the Working nrty on Schedules,
Tvis proposal wasro2ed.
ahe CHh.a\^'asuggostod, thht aml the mmtters arising fron the last five
itorzeehich hae.Just b:;n discussed, in view of their closely related
nature, night be entr.sThis h one workinggreet,, gree ,aving been arrPcd
the Chair-an ermicateeemsat preposed toens of roference and composition
for the Working Party would be presented to the Contracting Parties for
meeptio.mee a subsequent nooting
or Continuing Administrtion oh t A egmee nt th roeme_
G.T./CP.5/49 a.d SR, 25, GATT/CP,6/9, 13 and 17)
The CHALThmAe recalled theerearks he had madc in his opening speech
rornrding tho imp^'ta ce ofethis item and inquired whether the Contracting
Pao oes woulc wish t. have a general discussion before considering
separatehree eoal thesubjects listed under this item.s thb :litthis it.
At the suggestion of Mr. THORP (United States), supported by
Mr. LECKIE (Uniteagreeded), it was ZMrQcl that the question of secretariat
and conference servenes should be tadad up first, in bavance of those
relating mmitieeeeanding Citeretoo and the s!tO.
Mr. THORP (United Stttes) pointed oue ehat the concreto proposals for
askinG the United Nationsata provide secretiriat and conference services
conmemeed ie ere docuixnt undor cohsidereti fomulane ead beon for~latod by the
Secretariat gnetea basws of suugostioms mhich his Governent had put
forwardwith athiew to placinioioe administram.mn of the Agree-ent on a
sounder binges. s developir themeideas, his Govornment had in mind a
nu:bcr f factors which rendered the present situation unsattsfactory, First,
-e pent- sd arrangeoreoswould dispiculof the diffmtmlties which rust be
cncountered by many Governments, including his own, Ie eaving to mako GATT/CP.6/SR. 3
Page 3
year-to-year budgetary provisions for the financing of the secretariat.
Secondly, there would no doubt be advantages in having a secretariat
whose personnel was provided with more permanent and stable tenures. An
alternative to the proposed arrangements would be to transform the
Contracting Parties into a formal international organizations so that it
would be in a position to have a permanent secretariat, but to change
the General Agreement into a definitive instrument would not be acceptable
to many countries without a detailed review of its provisions, a step
which was likely to involve prolonged legislative action for some countries.
The present is evidently not an opportune time for such an attempt.
As regards the apprehension that the arrangement would involve
interference by the United Nations in the work of the Contracting Parties
it was inevitable that some relationship rust be established between the
two organizations. Even the International Trade Organization, if set up,
would be obliged to enter into an agreement with the United Nations and
would have to function within the latter's orbits and under its super-
vision, as one of its specialized agencies. As there was, even at present,
no way of preventing the United Nations front interfering in their work,
the rights and the privileges of the Contracting Parties were more likely
to be protected than impaired if arrangements wore made along the lines
proposed by his delegation, and in the light of his past experience with
the Economic and Social Council Mr. THORP believed that no anxiety
need be entertained on that account. In anticipation of the question
whether it would be fair to ask members of the United Nations which were
not contracting parties to bear a part of the cost of operating the
General Agroenent such as would be the case if the United States proposal
wore adopted Mr. Thorp pointed out that most of the work and projects
which the United Nations financed could not be hold to benefit all of its
members; not only the regional commissions served only limited
geographical areas, but there had been many other organs such as the
Balkans Commission which were of no direct concern to many countries, On
the other hand the work of the Contracting Parties in promoting the lowering
of tariffs and other trade barriers, contributed to the weal of almost all
nations' of the world. There was therefore nothing in the United States
proposal which would break with precedents or which could be considered
inappropriate,
In conclusion, Mr. THORP drew attention to the safeguards provided
in the Memorandum of Understanding to be reached with the United Nations
which clearly defined the rights and responsibilities of the Contracting
Parties; no transfer of any rights of the Contracting Parties to the
United Nations was involved. The United States delegation would like to
hear the opinion of the other contracting parties and hoped that after the
general discussion they would sec enough merit in the proposal to entrust it
to a working party with a view to its further elaboration and to reaching
a solution satisfactory to all.
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) felt that even after the clear
exposition by the United States representative, a number of important
questions remained to be clarified. First, he would agree that the present
was not an opportune time to endow the General Agreement with a permanent GATT/CP. 6/SR. 3
Page 4
status when its provisions had not been reviewed Consequently it would be
hard to see why a permanent secretariat should le set up as the organization
itself was not yet a permanent concern Secondary it was doubtful how far
and in what way interference by the United. Nations in the work of the
Contractirig Parties could be avoided' altogether. The General Agreerment
had been operated successfully in the past thanks mostly to the unique way
in which its business was conducted Many contracting parties would be
sorry to see this informal and intimate rnachinery which had been developed
in the past year, tamperee with. The United States representative had
indicated that safeguards would be derised to preserve these characteristics
of the Contracting Parties but a more explicit descriptionn of the safeguards
would be welcome.
M. LECUYER (France) felt that it would be desirable that the present
secretariat arrangements should. remain unchanged. Should that prove
impossible in view of difficulties, some of which wore indeed inherent in
the activities of the Contracting Parties, the French delegation would
wish to express some fears and misgivings which should be taken into
account in making any other arrangement. First; the United Nations
Secretariat had numerous and complex tasks to perform and the mergin of the
General Agreement secretariat with it would certainly resuls' in some
difficulties unless the relationship between the Contracting Parties and
the Unitee Nations wore clearly defined and a guarantee secured in regard
to the quality cf the service that would be provide. As had been pointed
out by the Netherlands representative the Contracting.Parties were a close
and intimate unit and possessed a unique individuality which was well
worth preserving. The most important point to bear in mind .n reaching
an agreement with the United Nations was therefore to insist on due regard
being given to the special characteristics of the Contracting Parties.
Mr, THORP (Unite(" States) in reply to tho Netherlands representative ,
state' that his delegation had not proposed to set up a permanent
secretariat for the Contracting Parties but had merely Suggested that
under the proposed arrangements members of the Secretariat would be
provided with a more permanent and suitable tenure of office In '. ;Jast
with their present position. As regards safeguards against any interference
by the United Nations, he would draw attention to the relevant provisions
of the draft Memorandum of Understanding whore it was clearly defined that
the secretariat would operate under the substantive guidance of the
Contracting Partics and would be only administratively under the control.
of the United Nations. And any further safeguards which might be
considered desirable could be added to those already included in the draft
mermorandum, which was indeed designed for that particular purpose. The
United' States delegation would agree t. the objectives mentioned by the
French and the Netherlands representatives.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) agreed with the former speakers that the
quality of the service which had been rendered by the Secretariat in the
past should be preserved but he could not share the apprehension expressed
by the Netherlands representative; a sOo;&t.^> could not be more
permanent than the organization to which it was attached, The Canadian
Delegation saw certain difficulties in the proposal and was particularly GATT/CP.6.ISR. 3
Page 5
concerned about the fact that contributions to the financing of the
Contracting Parties would be made by non-contracting parties. The
Canadian Delegation, although not sharing the apprehension that the
autonomy of the Contracting Parties would be very much impaired, had
misgivings about the Contracting Parties being reduced apparently to a
subordinate organ of the United Nations. Such subordination would create
the impression that the Contracting Parties wore less influential in the
international economic field than the International Monetary Fund and the
International Bank, whereas they should stand on the same level,. On the
other hand there were real advantages to bo derived front the proposed
arrangements, among which not the least important was the stability which
would be assured to the secretariat, in view of the permanent character
of the United. Nations, The proposal should be referred to a carefully
composed and well-balanced working party for close study.
M. DI NOLA (Italy) felt that the United States proposal would seem to
be Justified to a certain extents since in present circumstances, whon
the International Trade Organization Charter was not likely to be ratified,
it Vas logical that the Interim Commission should be dissolved, The
United States representative had referred'. to certain administrative
difficulties which would confront hi. Government if the present arrangements
were to be continued, but the proposed arrangements also had drawbacks,
In particular the financial provisions in paragraph 5 of the Memorandun of
Understanding wore not acceptable: hitherto, contributions to the budget
of the Contracting Parties had been decided by themselves, but Under the
proposed arrangements contributions by countries which were not numbers
of the United Nations would be assessed by a third party. If this were
accepted, one must expect the loss of tho former indepandence of the
Contracting Parties. Evon though by the proposed arrangements dependence
on the United Nations was limited to the administrative field, independence
in policy and operation was bound to suffer to somo extent once the
finance of the Contractig Parties was controlled by another body,
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) emphasized the desirability of continuing the
present arrangements. In view of the divergence between the membership
of the United Nations and the Agreement there were bound to be difficulties
in designing an equitable method of assessing contributions. It was
difficult at any rate to sec the compelling reason why the present practice
could not be continued in the future.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) expressed the opinion that whatever arrange-
ments wore made for the financing of the Contracting Parties, the future of
the Interim Commission for an International Trade Organization should not
be Prejudiced. The proposal under consideration, however, would seem to
imply the abolition of tho Interim Commission for an International Trade
Organization, and it was doubtful that this body, created by the United
Nations Havana Conference on Trade and Employment, could legitimately be
put out of existence by a different group of countries. He would therefore
like to have a clarification on this legal point.
In reply, the CHAIRMAN said that he would reply to this legal question
after consideration with the Executive Secretary. GATT/CP.6/SR. 3
Page 6
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) said that after listening to the United
States representative, his Delegation felt that an entirely convincing case
had hot been made out for the adoption of this somewhat unorthodox and
round-about rnethod of financing the Secretariat. It was customan that
whn an international convention was accepte,' a government would take the
necessary steps to meet the financial obligations which it entailed and
there was no reason why this straight-forward method should not be adopted.
for the financing of the General Agreement. It was doubtful, in the first
place, whether it would be possible to make the proposed arrangements with
the United Nations. Even though the Contracting Parties would be put
under no more obligation towards theUnited Nations than the furnishing of
an annual review of their activities, this would imply that the Economic
and Sociel Council, in taking note of the review thus submitted, would have
the right to consider whether the activities of the Contracting Parties
were of sufficient value to merit financial support; it would be natural
that the body which controlled the finance of an organization would have
sore say in the policy and work of that organization. In that case it was
conceivable that an individual contracting party, if and when dissatisfied
with a decision of the Contracting Parties, should think fit to appeal to
the Economic and Social Council as a last resort, with the result that
discussions in the Contracting Parties would be duplicated at the Council.
The submission of a report by an independent body, such as the proposed
International Trade Organization, which provided its own finance, was an
entirely different matter from the case under consideration; such submission
by the Contracting Parties, if they depended upon the United Nations for
their finance, would inevitably imply a kind of tutelage. Furthermore,
the Contracting Parties had already suffered much from the fact that it
did not stand in the eyes of governments and the public on a par with
the International Monetary Fund and this position could obviously not be
improved if they were made a department of the United Nations. The terms
to be offered to the United Nations as set forth in the draft Memorandum
of Understanding would seen to be too stiff to be offered. by a body
asking for funds, Prolonged negotiations might be inevitable and the
Contracting Parties night very well lose in the end to the detriment of
the General Agreement.
secondly, the present would not seen to be the proper moment for
making such sweeping changes, since any action taken now would inevitably
prejudice the decisions which had to be taken by governments in the next
two or three years regarding the final form and scope which the General
Agreement should have as a permanent instrument. The United Kingdon
Government would have to consider very carefully and in consultation with
other governments whether and in what forma the General Agreerment should be
transformed and to what extent the scope of its provisions should be
broadened. It had not been the intention of the designers of the Havana
Charter that it should be broken up into fragments, each admiinistered by
separate international bodies. The United Kingdom Government was very
much concerned about the recent decision of the Economic and Social Council
to take upon itself the task of dealing with matters falling under
Chapter V of the Havana Charter. The suggestion that different aspects of
commercial policy could be safely administered by different bodies if
their activities were coordinated by the Economic and Social Council was not GATT/CP.6,/SR. 3
Page 7
tenable; it was clear from the structure of the International Trade
Organization Charter that all aspects of commercial relations formed part
of a whole which should be dealt with by one international body, and not
by a number of specialised organisation What appeared on the surface to
be no more than a simple change of administration would, upon close
examination, be found to have far-reaching implications and ratifications.
In conclusions Mr. LECKIE asked whether the present straight-forward
arrangements were not preferable and could be continued The Contracting
Parties, before going. ahead with any innovation, should at least be
convinced that difficulties which were said to be faced by certain
governments, were really insurmountable. There was therefore no point in
referring the proposal to, a working party until agreement had been reached
on matters of principle. He proposed that no attempt be made at present to
reach a final conclusion, but that the question should be deferred to a
later stage of the session so that there would be a period for reflection.
Mr. VIRA (India) stated that his Delegation would find it difficult
to accept the proposal in its present form. For one thing, the Indian
delegation did not understand the difficulty referred to concerning the
continuation of the present method of financing the Secretariat. Even
if the difficulties were real it should not be impossible to solve them
without making others responsible for financing the Secretariat. Moreover,
the time was not ripe to consider raking permanent provisions for the
administration of the General Agreement since the definitive version of
the Agreement was yet to be worked out.
The CHAIRMAN,, sunning up the discussion, pointed out that all
representatives who had spoken, other than the representative of the
United States had expressed doubts about the proposal, Since other
representatives might wish to contribute he would propose the adjournment
of the discussions The question would be reopened later.
The proposal of the Chairman was adopted.
The meeting rose at 6.25 p.m.
X -i |
GATT Library | vd404nb0472 | Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Thursday, 27 September 1951 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 28, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 28/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.13 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vd404nb0472 | vd404nb0472_90270200.xml | GATT_140 | 1,923 | 12,574 | RESTRICTED.
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR .13
28 September 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD .OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva)
on Thursday, 27 September 1951 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr, Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subject discussed: Termination of Obligations between the United States
and Czechoslovakia,(continued).
Termination of Obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia under
the General Agreement (continued) (GATT/CP.6/5 & Adds, 1 & 2)
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia), in continuation of his remarks made at the
previous meeting, recalled that, on 17 October 1946, the leader of the United
States Delegation to the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Employment had said that it was his country's intention to base
international trade on the principle of non-discrimination. On that basis,
and on the principles of the United Nations Charter, the United States Govern-
ment had initiated proposals for the Havana Charter and for the General Agree-
ment. The principles of the General Agreement were well-known to be based on the
elimination of discriminatory measures in international trade, through the
granting of most-favoured-nation treatment. The only true function of the.
Agreement was to maintain normal commercial relations between the contracting
parties, based on equality of rights and mutual economic advantage, and
irrespective of their political outlook and practice. But as soon as the
Agreement was signed United States export policy had started to violate its
principles. The United States used export policy to serve the ends of their
foreign policy, and systematic export control to that effect had been enforced
since 1948, Mr. Tauber illustrated this contention by quoting from the records
of the House of Representatives of 16 July 1951, American policy was not
directed towards mutual collaboration between the nations and it was in conflict
with international undertakings not to interfere with the sovereignty-of other
nations, The Contracting Parties had certainly not intended that the General'
Agreement should be used to further the political aims of the United States,
Mr. Tauber said that the United States had asked for tariff reductions
from Czechoslovakia, and had then prohibited the export to his country of the
majority of products for which reductions had been requested; this prohibition
had resulted in a decrease in imports fran the United States from 49 million
dollars in 1947 to 10½ million dollars in 1950, This decrease had taken place GATT/CP.6,/SR.13
Page 2.
after the prohibitions were enforced in 1948 and thus it was evident that the
decline was not t.he result of insufficient commercial information or of the
liquidation of the agencies of American firms.. If the United States exporters
wanted commercials information they could obtain it, and if American exporters
wanted to sell their products in Czechoslovakia nobody would stop them, His
Government would certainly put no obstacle in their way. It was not his
Government, which was making these relations impossible, but the United States
Government, During the Third Session of the Contracting Parties at Annecy in
1949, Czechoslovakia t t. complained against the discriminatory character of
United States export policy; since then these. complaints had been repeated many
times. He would like to know how his country could be held responsible for the
decrease in American exports to Czechoslovakia, On the contrary, his country
was doing everything in its power to maintain commercial relations with the
United States. Czechoslovak exports to the United States had even increased
from 23 million dollars in 1947 to 26 million dollars in 1950, but the United
States Government. seeing imports on the increase, had withdrawn tariff
reductions such as those for ladies' hats, During all this time Czechoslovakia,
in its desire to expand trade on the basis of equal rights, had been increasing
its trade with the USSR and other countries, In order to be permanently assured
of markets for selling.its products and of opportunities for buying goods that
needed to be imported, the country's trade was being directed towards expanding
economic relations with the USSR and other central and south-east European
countries, At the same time, however, such relations could also be extended
with the United States., the British Commonwealth, France and other countries
This policy had been made clear by his country's delegation to the Preparatory
Committee which met in London in October 1946, and his Government's attitude in
this respect had not, changed, Moreover; this policy followed naturally from the
country's geographical positions All these facts went to show that nothing had
happened since 21 April 1948, (the date upon which Czechoslovakia became a
contracting party), to justify the Government of the United States in terminating
its obligations under the General Agreement,
The question brought before the Contracting Parties by the United States
did not concern tariffs only, but was of a much larger scope and went beyond
the General Agreement. According to the Charter of the United Nations, measures
such as those taken by the United States were permissible only after a decision
by the security Council, Two questions arose: first, should a government be
allowed to pursue its foreign policy by means of economic pressure; and;
second,. should a government be allowed to act against the fundamental principles
of an international economic agreement on grounds foreign to the agreement and
about which other parties were not entitled or competent to judge,
The principles of Czech economic policy had been reaffirmed at the Fifth
General Assembly of the United Nations by the Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign
Affairs. Czechoslovakia would always be in favour of developing its foreign
economic relations in peaceful ways and in accordance with the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations and the General Agreement. The Agreement in
particular should be the instrument to ensure economic collaboration between
nations, But these aims could never be realized if solemnly concluded.agreements
could be denounced unilaterally to serve the interests of one party, In his
view, the memorandum submitted by the United States Government proved the
unwillingness of that Government to act in accordance with these principles. GATT/CP.6/SR .13
Page 3
It was for these reasons that he requested the Contracting Parties to reject
the request made by the United States.
Mr. André PHILIP (France) regretted that this situation had arisen, not
only in relation to the two countries directly concerned., but also because of
its impact on the General Agreement, The first question he felt compelled to
ask was the relevance of any specific article of the General Agreement to the
present case, and, directly connected with the answer to that question, the
competence of the Contracting Parties to pass judgment on the whole matter.
Articles XXIII and XXV had been cited as being relevant. For his part, he could
not believe that Article XXIII could be applied, since that article covered the
case of a contracting party which considered that a particular benefit which
should accrue to it under the Agreement was being nullified or impaired, or that
a particular advantage, resulting from the Agreement, was being withheld. He
considered that neither party in this dispute had as yet referred to any clearly
defined benefits or advantages but that, on the contrary, both parties had
drawn attention to the entire situation, in its full complexity and including
all aspects of their mutual relationship. Furthermore., Article XXIII provided
that the Contracting Parties might institute investigations on any complaint
brought to their notice under that article, He wondered how it would ever be
possible to conduct such an investigation if it were true that the total
relationship between the two countries was in question and not just one or
several concrete cases for which Article XXIII was designed.
M. Philip felt equally sceptical about the applicability of Article XXV.
This article provided that in exceptional circumstances not elsewhere provided
for the Contracting Parties could waive an obligation imposed upon a contracting
party. Although he would not deny that such exceptional circumstances had
arisen, it was equally clear that it could not be a question of passing judgment
on whether or not to waive one or other obligation, but that, on the contrary,
the Contracting Parties were being requested to deal with a situation arising
from a whole complex of questions. The very fact that the circumstances were
of an exceptional character, not elsewhere provided for in the Agreement,
should make it evident that no precedent relating to circumstances which were
provided for in the Agreement could be created. The Contracting Parties were
confronted with a complexity of political-.economic relations between two
countries which, in some of its constituent parts might be brought into con-
nection with the clauses of the General Agreement, but to the totality of which
the General Agreement could not be applied. It had struck him particularly
that both parties had stressed this aspect of the matter which was perhaps
the only point where they appeared to be in complete agreement. The economic
relations between the two countries had, naturally enough, resulted from the
imperfections of their political relationships. Both parties accused each other
of taking measures, within their respective countries, which made normal trade
relations between them impossible, Equally,, both parties had stressed the
general character of the measures taken, even if some particular measure had
been quoted as an illustration. It would be quite impossible for the Contracting
Parties to investigate the details of the accusations brought forwards and it
would be equally impossible to pass judgment on the merits of the whole case
as presented by either party. Should the Contracting Parties let themselves be
led to undertake this task, there was no doubt in his mind that the most vehement GATT/CP 6/SR,13
Page 4
conflicts would arise between them and the government concerned The conclusion
was, therefore, inescapable that the circumstances were "exceptional" and that
tha problem, because of its political-ecnomic nature, could not be resolved
under the General Agreements
Listening to the speech by the Czechoslovak delegate he had come to the
conclusion that the essence of that speech,consisted in the realisation that
the situation between the two countries had deteriorated to such an extent that
the advantages normally accruing to countries under the General Agreemend had
now'disappeared. The Contracting Parties would do well to limit their investi-
gation to the acknowledgment of this fact, They could only take note of the
situation which had resulted from the deterioration of the entire relationship
between the two countries, The conclusion could then be that, having acknowledged
this state of affairs, it was not the task of the Contracting Parties to examine
the question further, andthat the only useful step they could take was to
absolve the two countries from the mutual economic obligations they had under-
taken towards each other under the Agreement' Since the entire relationship
between the two countries was involved the Contracting Parties could only
express their sincere hope that this relationship would one day improve. He
had found that the text of the United States proposal correctly acknowledged
the implications of, this situations since it referred to "all the obligations"
existing between the t wo countries,
Finally, M.. Pilip stressed the view that the present case could on no
account provide a precedent under the Agreement which any contracting party
could ever employ to resolve a particular problem arising in its relations with
another contracting party, The General Agreement was a technical instrument
to deal with technical trade problems; the question with which the Contracting
Parties were at present confronted was of a different order altogether.
The discussion was then adjourned.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | pc621fm0055 | Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday, 26 September 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 28, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 28/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.12 and GATT/CP.6/SR.8-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pc621fm0055 | pc621fm0055_90270199.xml | GATT_140 | 3,135 | 20,077 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.12
TARIFFS AND TRADE 28 September 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELFTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva;
on Wednesday, 26 September 19.51 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subject discussed: Termination of Obligations between the United States
and Czechoslovakia.
Termination of Obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia
under the General Agreement (GATT/CP16/5 & Add.1 & 2)
The CHAIRMAN said that the meeting had before it the proposal by the
United States for a Declaration on the suspension of obligations between the
United States and Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak delegate had asked at the
previous meeting to be allowed to raise a point of order. .
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) explained that he raised a point of order
because his delegation did not consider this a suitable item for consideration
by the Contracting Parties in that the substance of the matter was political.
He referred to the statement submitted by the United States representative in
August (document GATT.CP,6/5). Although not intending to enter into the
substance of the paper at the present time, he wished to state that the reasons
invoked by the United States were entirely political and were therefore, by the
provisions of Article 86:3 of the Havana Charter, outside the scope of the
Contracting Parties. Mr. Tauber referred to the Chairman's ruling based on
Article XXV:5 that the item should be placed on the agenda. Again he did not
wish to discuss a.c the present time whether Article XXV was of a nature to
justify a debate on this item. Nevertheless, he believed th.t it was unlikely
that the contracting parties would accept the economic pretexts alleged by the
United States in this matter. The basis for the United States action was to be
found in Law 1612, Section 5 of the Trade Agreement Extension Act, the sole aim
of which was to find a means to intensify the hostile policy of the United States
towards the Soviet Union and the popular democracies. The section which empowered
the President to sever commercial relations with those countries was based
entirely on political considerations, Mr. Tauber deplored the lack of scruples
of the United States Congress in violating the international obligations of the
United States and proceeded to quote from a Senate report.
The CHAIRMAN at this point asked the delegate from Czechoslovakia to limit
himself to the actual point of order. A discussion had already taken place at
the first meeting of the Session on whether the item should be included in the GATT/CP. 6/SR.12
Page 2
Agendas He did not consider that the Czechoslovak delegate was advancing any
new arguments against its inclusion. However, on the understanding that the
Czechoslovak delegate would address himself to whether there were new facts or
arguments to justify the exclusion of this item from the Agenda, he would
permit him to continue.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) reiterated that the United States motives were
political and that political differences should be settled, in the spirit of
Article 86 of the Havana Charter, before the competent organ of the United
Nations, He considered it clear that the Contracting Parties had no jurisdic-,
tion to deal with this matter. Furthermore, it seemed to him difficult for
the Contracting Parties to discuss whether the question was appropriate or not
since they were not fully informed of all its aspects. Dr. Tauber's statement
is reproduced in full in Press Release GATT/45.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Czechoslovak delegate had repeated the proposal
that he had made at the first meeting for the removal of this item from the
Agenda and that he did not appear to have produced any new argument in favour
of his proposal. There being no support for the proposal to delete the item,
he would rule that it remained on the Agenda,
Mr. THORP (United States), referring to the reference that had been made
to Article 86:3 of the Havana Charter, thought it would be an interesting
question to determine the extent to which a Charter article, not mentioned in
the General Agreement, was applicable to the Contracting Parties; furthers
it should be recalled that this article had been interpreted at Havana as
relating to particular controversies of which the United Nations or another
appropriate international organ was already seized,
The United States proposed that the Contracting Parties, acting in accordance
with Article XXV of the General Agreement, should set aside the commitments of
the Agreement as applied between the United States and Czechoslovalda, He
pointed out that the request was not a unilateral proposal bat would free
Czechoslovakia equally of its obligations towards the United States and was
therefore consistent with the principles of equity and reciprocity underlying
the Agreement. Furthermore, the terms of the proposal would apply exclusively
to the relations between the United States and Czechoslovakia and would not
affect the obligations between either government and other contracting parties
in any respect.
Mr. Thorp explained the reasons why the United States felt compelled to
take this step. His Government had known for sane time that the economic
system of Czechoslovakia was being manipulated in such a way as to nullify the
economic benefits which the United States had expected fran the General Agreement.
Under ordinary circumstances, sach actions would properly be the subject of a
complaint by the United States under Article XXIII. His Government, however,.
felt that there could be no real remedy under the provisions of that Article
at the present time because there was no reasonable anticipation of an improvement
in United States commerce with Czechoslovakia so long as the present state of
relations between the two countries existed. It seemed to him an elementary
proposition that fruitful economic relations between any two countries and the
value of commercial obligations must presuppose some reasonable degree of GATT/CP. 6/SR .12
Page 3
tolerance, respect and good faith between them. This was lacking between the
Governments of the United States and Czechoslovakia at the present time, Since
the negotiations which had taken place between the two countries in 19475
Czechoslovakia had radically altered its entire economic system and the general
attitude of its government towards the United States, Since that time the
relations between the two Governments had steadily deteriorated and had by now
fallen below the minimum degree of tolerance and respect which was essential
to the effective discharge of the obligations of the Agreement. It was in
these circumstances that the United States asked that the obligations be
formally dissolved. He emphasized that his proposal introduced no new principle
of international law. Clauses for the termination of international commitments
had almost always been included in bilateral commercial agreements and treaties,
In so far as the General Agreement was concerned no country's right to withdraw
entirely from the Agreement would be questioned. The fundamentals of the
United States proposal, envisaging a situation where two countries continued
to be parties to the Agreement although the Agreement was not applied between
them, was already accepted in Article XXIV. Unfortunately Article XXXV was
not incorporated in the Agreement at the time the United States and Czechoslova-
kia became contracting parties and it was not until after that time that the
Government of Czechoslovakia fundamentally altered the nature of its relations
with the United States.
The United States did not wish to inject political disputes into the
debates of the Contracting Parties and did not therefore ask the Contracting
Parties to discuss any of the political issues between the two countries nor
to decide on the right or wrong of any of the causes or issues. The United
States asked the Contracting Parties only to recognize the evident fact that,
irrespective of the merits of any political issue, the incompatibility between
the two Governments was at the present time so fundamental that the commercial
policy obligations under the Agreement could not be fulfilled and should, of
right and in honesty., be suspended. His Government considered that, in taking
such action, the Contracting Parties would not create a precedent for contro-
versies between governments on well-defined or specific issues. The present
case referred to the general state of relations between two governments
extending to all matters, and this was clearly an "exceptional circumstance"
which would not pertain to other situations less fundamental and sweeping in
character,
The full text of Mr. Thorp's statement is to be found in Press Release
GATT/46.
Mr. NATADININGRAT (Indonesia) thought the Contracting Parties should
decide whether Article XXV was the most appropriate article under which this
matter should be decided,
The CHAIRMAN said that although no reference was made in the United States
proposal to any particular article their statements apparently envisaged action
under.Article XXV.
Mr. PERKRA (Ceylon) considered that, since the Contracting Parties were
governed by a document the quotation of an article was desirable. GATT/CP.6/SR.12
Page 4
the CHAIRMAN pointed out that there was no requirement that a resolution
or declaration of the Contracting Parties refer to a particular article of the
Agreement. The Contracting Parties, by virtue of Article XXV were empowered
to make such a Declaration.
Mr, SAHLIN (Sweden) stated that the draft declaration was based on very
broad considerations, He considered that Article XXIII contained appropriate
conditions to settle such a matter, particularly the preamble to paragraph 1
and sub.-paragraphs (b) and c). Certainly it would be preferable to settle
the matter in accordance with a specific article of the Agreement.
Mr. ARGUROPOULOS (Greece) wished to add some considerations to those put
forward by the United States delegate. The Czechoslovak delegate hid argued
that it was not permissible tor the Contracting Parties to invoke political
considerations. Certainly there could be no disagreement on the fact that only
economic arguments were relevant but it should not be forgotten that economic
effects were often the result of political causes, In studying the effect it
was often difficult to remain silent on the cause. In relations with
Czechoslovakia, countries were faced with a system of state-trading where all
commercial dealings were subordinated to the general policy of the government
There was no freedom in commerce and the laws of supply and demand did not
operate. He gave as an example the trade between Greece and Czechoslovakia
which, before the war, had been very active. Attempts had been made since the
war to resume commercial relations and a commercial treaty had been signed in
1947, Trade.between the two countries, in spite of the treaty, had however
diminished steadily. The marked decrease was not due to any decline in the
demand for Greek goods, but rather to the fact that licenses for import of
Greek goods or for the export of goods to Greece were denied by the Czechos-
lovak authorities, This was not surprising since most Greek goods were of
little interest to a country whose economy was entirely subordinated to its
political interests, There seemed to Mr. Argyropoulos an element of opportunism
in the attitude of the Czechoslovak Government, Commercial principles were
invoked only when they would be useful to the Czechoslovak political interest,
and they could hardly complain if other countries also acted in their own
interests. He agreed with the arguments adevanced by the United States and
fully supported the proposal.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) said that very important issues were raised by
this matter and his Government had considered it with great care* He referred
to Article 86:3 of the Havana Charter. Although Chapter VII of the Charter was
not specifically included by reference in Article XXIX of the Agreement, it had
surely been the general intention that the principles of the Charter should be
guiding ones for the Contracting Parties, If political differences were allowed
to affect commercial treaties the binding force of international agreements would
be very seriously weakened. It seemed to him, however, that if any two contracting
parties had arrived at a state where trade between them was impossible, then
the Agreement itself could hardly be e pected to f unction between them, It
would be difficult to compel them to do something with which they totally dis-
agreed and the only result would be increased friction that would defeat the
purpose of any attempt at settlement. Such a course would be unrealistic and
impracticable. GATT/CP 6/SR 312
Page 5
Article XXV:5 (a) laid down a procedure by which obligations' could be
waived, Although no specific "exceptional circumstances" were mentioned in
this article, the fact that the relations of two contracting parties were such
that neither was able to deal with the other appeared to his Government to be an
exceptional circumstance that would come under its terms., His Government did
not feel that they could stand in the way of a contracting party wishing to
take action in such special circumstances. He referred to the declaration
proposed by the United States and considered that the use of the word "suspension"
rather than "termination" was of great importance, He also noted that the
declaration envisaged reciprocal action and would not affect the obligations of
either the United States or Czechoslovakia with other countries. The proposal
appeared to take a practical view of the situation and he would support it. He
wished it to be clear, however; that his delegation was not taking sides on the
system of economic administation in either country and that they would greatly
deprecate any such attempt by the Contracting Parties. They were interested
only in reaching a practical solution of the problem.
Mr, SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) considered that this was a matter of such
great importance that as many delegates as possible should have the opportunity
to express their views and have the time to communicate the substance of the
debate to their respective governments, He hoped also to hear from the
Czechoslovak delegate, When the question of placing this item on the Agenda
had first been discussed he had agreed to its inclusion as he felt unable to
judge before there had been some discussion of the matter. His country, when
it had first considered the matter., thought it was perhaps largely political
but the Contracting Parties had since decided that the item should be discussed.
He thought it would be profitable to deal with the matter under some specific
article and was particularly anxious to hear the Czechoslovak delegate on this
subject since his statements hitherto had been confined to the impossibility
of. discussing the matter at all. Above al.l contracting parties should be
concerned that whatever decision was taken on this matter should not damage the
Agreement .
Mr. NATADININGRAT (Indonesia) supported the Danish proposal that time
should be.allowed for communication with governments,
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) wished to speak first with reference to the
statement by the United States delegate<. The United States delegate claimed
that the request of the United States was based on the idea of mutuality and
had referred to Article. XXXV. If 'a contracting party were given the right to
withhold application of the Agreement to an existing contracting party, a
dangerous precedent would be created and one which. would. in fact, undermine
the fundamental principles of all international treatises, There was a great
difference between states who refused to undertake obligations to another
state at the time of entering into an agreement and states which had undertaken
obligations with another state which they later wished to violate. In any event
the contention by the United States that Article XXXV wap not in effect at the
tire when Czechoslovakia became a contracting party was incorrect, Czechos-
l.vakia became a contracting party on 21 April 1948 and Article XXXV was inserted
into the General Agreement by a protocol dated 24 March and effective fran
15 April of that year. Furthermore at that time the economic policy of
Czechoslovakia was quite clear, It was not Czechoslovakia that had changed its
policy in the interval and abandoned the principles which had been laid down GATT/CP. 6/SR .12
Page 6
for commercial policy in 1946 but rather the United States. The United States
Congress itself called this action economic cold war. It was contrary to every
principle of the Agreement and Mr. Tauber was convinced that no contracting party
could identify itself with such a policy,
The United States in 1947 had asked and obtained frame Czechoslovakia
concessions on certain products. Later the United States Government forbade
the export of' many of these products to Czechoslovakia. The question of
discriminatory application of export licenses had already been raised by his
Government at Annecy. Naturally the action by the United States had reduced
the volume of exports of the United States to Czechoslovakia and diminished the
value of the concessions obtained by the United States, but the situation had
been entirely created by the United States and they could not reasonably
complain that Czechoslovakia had caused it.
The United States delegate had referred to Article XXV. Mr. Tauber wished
to point out that the words "exceptional circumstances" had been defined in the
Report of the First Session in London and again at the Second Session of the
Preparatory Committee by the United States delegate, Mr. Kellog, and French
delegate Mr. Palthey, It was clear from these definitions that exceptional
circumstances" referred to such natural catastrophes as floods for example,
which would place the country involved in grave economic danger, Czechoslovak-
imports into the United States hardly fell into such a category. The United
States proposal resulted entirely from their own action in forbidding exports
and thereby depriving themselves of the benefits of the tariff reductions for
which they now wished to compensate by withdrawing their own tariff concessions.
:Article XXIII had also been mentioned in the discussion. If the United
States wished to base their action on Article XXIII they should firstly have
made written representations to the Czechoslovakian Government through diplomatic
channels as other governments have done in similar circumstances The
document submitted by the United States did not fulfil the requirements of the
Article, Had this approach produced no satisfactory adjustment the Contracting
Parties should then have investigated the matter, His Government was ready to
discuss ali the questions raised by the United States in the paper submitted by
it but could not allow that these matters, which were purely political, had
any relevance to Article XXIII, In the case that an investigation were agreed
to under Article XXIII then the Contracting Parties would have to consider the
case in detail.
He wished finally to refer to the remarks made by the Greek delegate and to
state firstly that most of the imports from Greece into Czechoslovakia in the
past had been of pyrites and since then Greece had been deprived of the right
to export this item, That was hardly the fault of Czechoslovakia, Secondly,
Czechoslovakia had never deprived Greece of most-favoured-nation treatment,
The meeting was adjourned at 6.35 p.m. |
GATT Library | vv662jk1324 | Summary Record of the Twentieth Meeting : Corrigenda | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 31, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 31/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.20/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vv662jk1324 | vv662jk1324_90270220.xml | GATT_140 | 241 | 1,670 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR.20/Corr. 1
31 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING
Corrigenda
In the first paragraph delete the words "save the exchange value of the
Belgian franc" and substitute "protect their currency".
Page 2
In the first paragraph the words"Council of the European Payments Union"
should read "Managing Board of the European Payments Union", and in the
next line the "Council's Decision" should read the "Organization for
European Economic Cooperation's Decision",.
Page 3
Delete the 5th sentence of Mr. Isbister's (Canada) remarks, and
substitute the following:
"There was no evidence to suggest the presence of an emergency
which might have required action to be taken under Article XII
without consultation. The Canadian Delegation would agree that
these might be quantitative restrictions and exchange restrictions
as well. While he thought it desirable that consultations be
arranged under Article XII, the Delegate of Canada said it might
be appropriate also for the International Monetary Fund on its own
account to consider this case."
Insert between the 6th and 7th sentences of his remarks the
following:
"He emphasized that the Canadian Government was in no way opposed
to the European Payments Union and regarded it, indeed, as a
useful organization."
Insert at the end of Mr. Isbister's statement the following:
"What his Delegation wanted was to get rid of import restrictions
which frustrated trade and were difficult to justify." |
GATT Library | gs843mh5036 | Summary Record of the Twentieth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, 22 October, 1951 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.20 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gs843mh5036 | gs843mh5036_90270219.xml | GATT_140 | 3,867 | 24,862 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR.20
26 October .1951.
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMRY RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, 22 October, 1951 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Belgian Import Restrictions.
2. Free Entry into Italy of Libyan Goods.
3. Article XX Time Limit.
4. Unfinished Article XXVIII Negotiations.
5. Status of Protocols and Schedules -
Application of Schedule III (Brazil).
M. SUETENS (Belgium) stated that a problem of fundamental Importance
faced the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic Union (B.L.E.U.). This was the pre-
vention of inflation within their countries which could result from the
pressure of the accumulation of credits accorded to foreign countries,
particularly in the past nine months. In order to save the exchange value
of the Belgian francs, urgent measures had become necessary since Belgium's
creditor position was growing at an alarming speed. This creditor position,
however, existed mainly with the countries belonging to the European Payments
Union while, on the other hand, a growing deficit had to be faced with the
dollar area. A solution to the problem of the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic
Union which would reduce its creditor position with the European Payments
Unions, and, at the same time, improve its debtor position with the dollar
area was therefore needed.
In order to limit further unwanted credit increases with the
European Payments Union area, the following measures had been taken:
(1) a limitation of exports to that area;
(2) a strict control on the nature and origin of
payments received from that area;
(3) a waiver of the obligation to repatriate foreign
exchange resulting from Belgian exports to
European Payments Union countries;.
(4) a levy of 5% on the value of all exports to
the European Payments Union area and the GATT/CP. 6/SR. 20
Page 2
blocking of these sums for a period of six months; and
(5) restriction on imports from dollar countries., a measure
taken so as to encourage imports from countries belonging
to the European Payments Union area.
All these measures had been taken in order to reduce the amount
of credit which the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic Union was granting. They
were, of course, interrelated, but from the point of view of the Contracting
Parties, the last-mentioned measure was no doubt the most important. He
wanted to stress however that, in this case, there was no question of
imports restrictions in the sense generally understood under the General
Agreement. He pointed out that the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic Union had
made proposals along these lines to the Council of the European Payments
Unions which had been accepted by the Council's Decision of 19 October 1951,
requesting Belgium and Luxemburg to encourage an increase in the imports
from Organization for European Economic Cooperation countries at the
earliest opportunity. Under these circumstances, he contended that the
measures taken were essentially of an exchange control characters and as
such were in agreement with the rules of the International Monetary Fund
and Article XV: 9 of the General Agreement. The Belgian and Luxemburg
Governments, however, intended to limit to a minimum the period of
application. . . -
It. LED] (United States) stated that his Government was disturbed
to learn that the Belgian Governmont had imposed quantitative restrictions
against goods ii'td from %te United States, Although the restrictions
had no yet been published, it appeotd thatithey had4entered into effect,
end. enied. for such goods were at present beiig dibd. -It was estimated
that these measures iight result in a reduction of United States exports
to Bel ium d ie%. His Government was of the opinion that.this would have
serious consequences for the future of the General Agreement, particularly
since the Belgian measures had bqen takon at a time when the reserves of
gold and roollar resources of Belgium were increasing fom levels not hitherto
regarded as und ly low.He referred to the obligations under. Articles
XII:2(a) and 4(a) and of Article X. The Belgian delegate had described the
teasr as permissible under Article XV of the General Agreement and XIV
aMthe'ArMicles of Agreement of the Iaternctional Nonetary Fund. The United
States Government was unable to accept this reasoning as they did not feel
that the General nAgeemennce-ofrovisions were designed to permit balace--
pstyment restrictions to esII rom II.the tets and requirements of Article XXT.
It appeared that these restrictions were devised to give special protection in
turhe Belgian market to goods from Western Eopean countries at the expense of
those fro dollar countries an.d pt to protect Belgian dollar reserves,
Neither the General Agreement nor the Articles of Agreement of the Inter-
nationi Monetary Fund permitted the imposition of such restrictions except
when justified by the balance-of-payments position of the country concerned.
With regard to the eciCon omf tCche Organization for European Econoni-Q
opration, he would point out that it only requested the Belgium-Luxemburg
Economic Union to take such measures as were "open" to them to encourage
imports from member countries. Ini his Government's view the measures n
question could not be said to be open to the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic
Unioen governments under the General Agrement, and furthermore, another GATT/CP.6/SR. 20
Page 7
international organizations regional in characters had no authority to set
aside the obligations of Belgium under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade. His Government did not, finally consider these import restric-
tions necessary for the operation of the European Payments Union. He asked
that the normal procedure of the General Agreement be followed; that a
working party be set up in order to decide, in consultation with the
International Monetary Funds whether these restrictions net the balance-of-
payments criteria sot out in the Agreement, and to report to the Contracting
Parties.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) stated that for some time his Government
had been aware of quantitative restrictions imposed by the Belgian Government,
although no official announcement or explanation had been issued. A long
list of products was involved and Canadian export trade had been immediately
affected. His Delegation had on several occasions made representations to
the Belgian Delegation. In the view of his Delegation the Belgian Government
had a clear obligation under Article XII to consult with the Contracting
Parties before instituting these restrictions. The proper procedure now
would seem to be for the Belgian Government to withdraw the restrictions and
to initiate consultations in the proper way. It was said by the Belgian
Delegation that these measures were necessitated, not tor Belgium's own
position but for reasons connected with the European Payments Union. His
Government was not aware that the European Payments Union or the Organisation
for European Economic Cooperation had made any recommendations about the
imposition of dollar restrictions by Belgium; the Europen Payments Union
had no jurisdiction over dollar import restrictions, Furthermore, dollar
control appeared to his Government to have little relevance to a solution
of the real problems facing the European Payments Union.
Already many people considered that benefits from the tariff
concessions were with held by virtue of quantitative restrictions imposed in
many countries. Very little meaning would remain to the General Agreement
if a country could impose quantitative restrictions for reasons outside
the terms of the Agreement and without the consultations required. The
question was whether the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was to
continue as an effective basis of commercial policy. With this in mind, he
appealed to the Belgian Government to remove these restrictions. If they
were still considered necessary, it would then be open to them to initiate
consultations under Article XII of the Agreement.
Mr. CALDER (United Kingdom) stressed the importance of realising
the nature of the issues which were involved. The action of the Belgian
Government in imposing the restrictions was related to the affairs of the
European Payments Union, which, though limited in membership compared with
the Contracting Parties, had within its own domain objectives which accord
entirely with those of the General Agreement. It sought to promote, within
its sphere, convertibility of currencies and removal of trade restrictions,
and had made most notable progress towards these aims. It had not only
secured, for the first tim since the war, inter-convertibility of all
Western European currencies, but had also brought the Western European
governments to review their trade restrictions against each other - to
examine whether the maintenance of any given restriction could still be
Justified rather than whether its removal could be risked, This was indeed
an achievement, considering the general position and attitude prevailing GATT/CP.6/SR. 20
Page 4
only two years ago. The Contracting Parties would do well to bear in mind
that the European Payments Union was now passing through a very difficult
stage in its career and that the Belgian problem, being a critical factor
in this situations must be considered in the wider setting in which it was
placed. If, through precipitate action here, time was not afforded for, a
solution to be found to the problem in which it was now engaged, the whole,
effort and initiative that the European Payments Union represented would
be besot by troubles from which it night not emerge unscathed, or might not
emerge at all. He wished to make it plain that he was not taking any
position as to the justification of the particular measures taken by Belgium;.
he was only appealing to the Contracting Parties to approach this matter with
a full realisation of what was bound up with it, and suggesting that the
Contracting Parties should avoid hasty judgments which could embarrass the
efforts of those who were now enged in attempting to solve the problem
before the European Payments Union. The Belgian representative had stated
clearly his position, and had said that the restrictions were, in the opinion
of his Government, justifiable under Article XV, paragraph 9 of the General
Agreement road in conjunction with Article XIV of the Fund Agreement, but
had added that he had no wish to evade any obligation under the General
Agreement and that his Government stood ready to consult the Contracting
Parties, The matter indeed appeared to be appropriate for consideration by
the Contracting Parties, since the restrictions in question seemed to be
essentially trade restrictions. The United Kingdom Delegation was inclined
at first sight to consider the matter should be dealt with under Article.
XII: 4(a) as this provided for consultation extending over the widest
possible area..Mr. Calder hoped that it would be possible to set up a
working party to proceed with a consultation, in which all aspects of the
Belgian restrictions as affecting all the contracting parties concerned would
be fully discussed. The working party should report to the Contracting
Parties in the normal way.
M. LECUYER (France) felt that the Contracting Parties now obviously
found themselves in a difficult situation, The problem, owing to its urgent
nature, required a solution which the Contracting Parties must endeavour to
find without delay. Although some aspects of the problem might not be
within the competence of the Contracting Partios, at least a part of the
problem, concerning the restriction of trade, must be dealt with by the
Contracting Parties. Various provisions of the Agreement had been referred
to by different representatives as being applicable to the case. But the
Contracting Parties should recognize the importance of the general spirit
of tho Agreement and a right solution might be found in examining the
problem in that spirit without going into the legal intricacies of the
various provisions of the Agreement. The Belgian representative having put,
forward his case clearly and frankly it was the duty of the Contracting
Parties to explore all possible ways of solving the question. He therefore
agreed with the United Kingdom representative that's considering the willing-
ness on the part of Belgium to consult with the Contracting Parties, a
working party should be set up and given ample time and facilities to study
all aspect of the restrictions taking fully into account the position of
Belgium in the European Payments Union.
Mr. VARGAS G0MEZ (Cuba) said that although it was common knowledge
that the restrictions had been applied, many relevant factor were still un- GATT/CP.6/SR.20
Page 5
known, e.g. the present financial position of Belgium, the scope of the
restrictive measures applied, the items affected by these restrictions and
so forth. For this reason his Delegation was not in a position to make a
responsible judgment of the issues involved. In addition to all this
information, there was need for a full discussion with the Delegations of
Belgium and the other contracting parties affected with the assistance of
representatives of the Fund. Generally speaking, the Cuban Government
regretted that a new case of trade restriction had arisen. As a general
policy his Government was against all trade restrictions which could not be
justified on balance-of-payment grounds. Apart from the adverse effects
they had on the interests of Cuba, his Government was concerned about these
restrictions also because the general objectives of the Agreement were
impaired., However his Delegation did not intend to prejudge the case and
would define its position only after the problem had been fully discussed.
Article XII: 4(a) requires any contracting party which might wish to apply
restrictions, to consult with the Contracting Parties, an obligation which
should now be carried out by the Belgian Government.
Mr. Vargas Gomez furth r emphasised the intention of his Goverrment
to follow a policy of absolute equity with regard to countries applying
restrictions; it. would not acquiese in the action of some countries while
being critical of others. Furthermore, its action would be guided by the
principle of fully respecting the provisions of the Agreement; while accepting
those restrictions which were applied genuinely because of external financial
difficulties his Government would oppose with all its energy the application
of restrictions unjustifiable under the terms of the Agreement, irrespective
of which country or group of countries might be applying them.
M. SUETENS (Belgium) acknowledged that the balance of payments of
Belgium was in a buoyant position; but the deficit with dollar countries
could not be covered by the surplus with others because of the inconverti-
bility of many currencies. As there was no balanceu-of-payments difficulty,
strictly within the meaning of Article XII of the Agreement, the case should
not be considered under that Article. Whatever the wording of the
Organization for European Economic Cooperation resolution, his Government
had no intention of defending its action on that account, since no action
taken by another organization could relieve Belgium of its obligation under
the General Agreement, The case should be considered under Article XV,
paragraph 9, as had been suggested, However, the Belgian Delegation would
agree to consult the Contracting Parties, under Article XII, on the
application of these restrictions, although in the opinion of his Government,
it was within its right to refuse to enter into such consultations, These
trade restrictions could be dispensed with if the other measures which had
been taken should prove successful in rectifying the situation. Though the
decision to apply the restrictions had, been taken on September 10, they
were regarded as experimental until October 15, since tire was needed for
testing their adequacy. In conclusion, M. Suetens accepted the proposal
that a working party should be established to examine ways and means of
conducting a consultation. His Delegation could not accept in advance the
applicability of Article XII but would wish to have this question examined
in a' wider setting and within the general spirit of the Agreement. GATT/CP.6/SR. 20
Page 6
Mr. LEDDY (United States) supported the United Kingdom proposal
that the question should be examined under Article XII: 4(d) by an inter-
sessional working party with terms of reference similar to those given at a
past session to the group studying the South African import restrictions
Article XV of the.Agreement must not be so interpreted as to remove a
contracting party's obligation under Article XII of the Agreement, for
otherwise the provisions of Article XII would be nullified, This was clearly
a matter for study both by the Fund and the Contracting Parties, and as
far as the latter were concerned the usual procedure would be to start
examination under Article XII, In so far as it related to import restrictions
applied for balance-of-payment reasons, the question should be studied only
under Artiele XII of the Agreement, and no useful purpose would be served by
giving a working party very general terms of reference.
The CHAIRMAN concluded that, whilst there seemed to be general
agreement. that the matter should be examined by a working party, there was
a division of opinion on the provisions of the Agreement which would be
applicable. The United Kingdom and the United States representatives had
proposed that the question should be studied under Article XII:4(a) but the
representatives of Belgium and France were of the opinion that the consul-
tations should be initiated under Article XXII. In view of the difficulty of
formulating torus of reference for a working party which would be acceptable
to all he would suggest that the discussion be adjourned. until a later
meeting.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) drew attention to the position of his
Delegation which had expressed doubt as to whether it would be possible to
formulate acceptable terms of reference for a working party.
As suggested by the CHAIRMAN, the discussion was
Continued Free Entry of Libyan Products (GATT/CP.6/35)
Mr.DI NOLA (Italy) apologized for introducing this item at soh
a late time in the Session and explained that owing to circumstances this
could not have been done at an earlier date. The Italian representative
on the United Nations Council for Libya had announced on September 26, to a
committed of the Council, that Italy was prepared to give economic assistance
to Libya by continuing the application of the present special treatment to
Libyan products imported into Italy. The present proposal had been made
with a view to reconciling this action with Italy's obligations under the
Agreement. After outlining the grounds on which the application was based,
as set forth in document GATT/CP.6/35, Mr. Di Nola requested that the
Contracting Parties should decide, on the basis of Article XXV :5(a), to waive
Italy's obligation under Article I of the Agreement to the extent necessary
for the continued application of the existing special treatment to Libyan
products until the end of 1952. In view of the difficulties which would be
caused to Libya when it came into existence as an independent kingdom on
January 1, 1952, if the present special treatment were discontinued, his
Delegation made the request at this Session rather than wait until the next
Session of the Contracting Parties. GATT/CP.6/SR. 20
Page 7
It was agreed that this item be added to the agenda of the Session.
M. LECUYER (France) pointed out that the request was for a waiver
to be effective only for a limited period of time, relating to an existing
measure applied by Italy in the interest of another country and affecting
only a limited number of products. Had there been more tine the Contracting
Parties would be justified in requesting additional information to support
the case, but in view of the urgent nature of the matter a temporary waiver
could be granted by the Contracting Parties on the understanding that when
the question came up again for consideration fuller information would be
supplied by the Italian Government. In these circumstances the French
Delegation would support the proposal of the Italian representative.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) felt that the Contracting Parties should
grant the request of the Italian Government as otherwise serious damage
might be caused to the Libyan economy. However, such a .waiver should be
applicable only with respect to the existing regime and should not be
applied to any other Libyan exports to Italy. The period of its application
need not be extended to the end of 1952; taking account of the time which
might be needed for adjustment to be made consequent upon any decision by
the Contracting Parties at the Seventh Session, the temporary waiver to
be granted now should be made effective until September 1, 1952, As regards
the statement by the Italian Delegation that "it reserved the right to
request a final decision if necessary at the Seventh Session and in any
event not later than 31 December 1952", Mr. Leddy suggested that the Italian
Government should undertake to make the request at the Seventh Session.
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) said that his delegation had some difficulty
in accepting the proposal put forward by the Italian Delegation at this
stage. Since Norway was interested in some of the products in question his
Delegation had to refer to its Government for instructions. However, his
Delegation would not object to a decision being taken. He suggested that
the Italian Government.be requested to submit full information before the
next session.
The CHAIRMAN summed up the discussion and concluded that it was
agreed in principle to grant a temporary waiver. He suggested that the
Executive Secretary be asked to prepare a formal decision for approval.
This was agreed.
Article XX. (GATT/CP.6/38) (Continued Discussion).
The CHAIRMAN recalled that thd Contracting Parties had agreed at
the tenth meeting on September 24 to extend the time limit in Part II of
Article XX for two years, and proposed the adoption of the Decision drafted
by the Executive Secretary (GATT/CP.6/38).
At the proposal of Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom). the third recital
of the Decision was changed to read "Whereas these conditions have still
not improved sufficiently to permit the general removal of measures main-
tained under the said provisions". GATT/CP.6/SR. 20
Page 8 -
The proposal was upportod by r BORRSSN NrwzMy) n
Mr. LMD (United Statoa. - :
The decision was 1 bto noe,
Mr. PRESS (eNew Zeland) eca2odthe reservation which he had mado
diieth preliminary'disussion `f thequestion. He requested that the
resoervation be rc6od o as to leave no room £fr oubt as to the right of
a contractingreemg party to raise, if a roiion of the Agz~ should be -uner-
taken oin the two year period the question t according different treatment
et paragrapchs (a) n (b) on the onIo and and (W)on the other in Part I of
Article XX.
Mr SVEINBJNSSQN (DeMark) nd Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) associated
themselves with the remarks of the New Zealand representative.
It was agreed that the reservation should be duly recorded.
de
at Toraas (GATT/OP6/37)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that at the eighth meeting on September 21
it wa agreed to extend the time lis it for the conclusion of negotiations
between Cuba and the United States under Article XVIII from 1 July 1951
to the opening of the Seventh Session, and proposed the adoption of the
draft decision prepared by the Executive Secretary (GATT/CP,/37)*
The Misibnwas adgpje b 32 votesD eto noone.
Status o'Pnd Shduls Alicto 'PA f protocols ail, coe
.r . 2.a
(GATT/CP.6/39
The CHARMAN rsalled the agreement reached at the eighth meeting
on September 21 to extend to December 31, 1951 the time litifor Brazil
to notify its intention to apply the concessions provided for in Schzule
III in Annex A to the necy ?otocol and proposed the adotion of the
Decision prepared-y'te' teoutive-SP9 ,:
This was 5 votes to none,
The meeting 6.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | bx530hr0548 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, January 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/01/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.25/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.24-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bx530hr0548 | bx530hr0548_90270158.xml | GATT_140 | 43 | 312 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.5/SR.25/Corr. 1
5 January 1951
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 1 - paragraph numbered 1.
insert the words "a part of" before "item 1526(a)"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nl |
GATT Library | qv870xj4915 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Thursday, 25 October 1951, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.25 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qv870xj4915 | qv870xj4915_90270226.xml | GATT_140 | 1,791 | 11,732 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Thursday, 25 October 1951, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. S. A. HASNIE (Pakistan)
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/SR.25
29 October 1951
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
Subjects discussed: 1. Report of Working Party 6 on Balance-of-Payment
Restrictions (Continued).
2. Derestriction of Documents.
3. Publication of General Agreement Documents.
4. Publication of a Third Progress Report.
5. Request by the Government of Liberia for re-negotiation
6. Memorandum by the Delegation of Czechoslovakia on the
suspension of obligations by the United States and
Czechoslovakia.
1. Report of Working Party 6 on Balance-of-Payment Restrict ions:
Report on the Review of Restrictions and on Discrimination (Continued)
(GATT/CP .6/48 and GATT/CP .6/12/Rev. 2)
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that there was no requirement in the Agree-
ment for the publication of the Report on the review of restrictions under
Article XII, but he had assumed that it was the intention of the Contracting
Parties that the Report would be published. Referring to the suggestion of
the delegate of the Netherlands that it should be made clear in the report that
the contents related to only one variety of the barriers to international trade,
he proposed that the Secretariat be entrusted with the writing of a preface
which would consist of a short statement on the genesis and character of the
review which was called for by the Agreement explaining that the review took
place at the Sixth Session and that the Report was the outcome of the discussions,
He thought this would meet the wishes of the representative of the Netherlands,
and Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN replied that he would be satisfied if it were made
clear that the report related to only one type of obstacle to trade.
It was agreed that the Secretariat should prepare a preface as indicated
by the Executive Secretary.
Mr. PANSEGROUW (South Africa) asked for a clarification of the passage in
the draft report relating to the extension of liberalization measures by members
of the O.E.E.C. countries to non-member territories; he inquired whether all
O.E.E.C. countries had supplied information or whether the report dealt only GATT/CP .6/SR.25
Page 2
with the action taken by some of the countries.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia), as Chairman of the Working Party, replied that
all contracting parties applying restrictions which are members of O.E.E.C.
had submitted information: sane wore not extending their liberalization outside
O.E.E.C., while some others were not acting under the liberalization programme
at all. The passage in question listed all the countries which had extended
the liberalization outside the O.E.E.C. area.
A discussion followed in which Mr. Pansegrouw (South Africa), Mr. Phillips
(Australia), Mr. Reisman (Canada), Mr. Bonhomme (Haiti), Mr. Leddy (United
States), Mr. van Blankenstein (Netherlands) and the Executive Secretary parti-
cipated. and it was agreed that the text should be amended to read: "Further,
they have extended the liberalization to imports from the dependent territories
of other members; and according to reports received the following countries have
extended it to certain non-member countries, as followe:".
Ths report of the Working Party on Balance-of-Payment Restrictions was
adopted,.withftfe reservation.of the representative og Czechoslovakia,
2.1111restriction.of Documents (GAT'/CP.6/fl)
The DEPUTY EXLCJTIVS 6ECWTARY recalled that.the present practice of the
Contracting Parties was to derestrict documents pertaining to sessions 90 days
after the close of the tetsion and to derestrict documents in bhe continuous
series on 31 March following the Galendar year in which they were issued. Under
thd latter arrangement, documents produced in the early months of the year were
subject to a long period of restriction; therefore it was now suggested that
there should be a ses-a&nual de'estriction. :
The EXECUTIVE SECFXTARY wished td make it clear that documents containing
nnformatioe sueplied by the International Ionetary Fund would hot be derustricted
wiithout the Fund being given an opportunity to Express its wshes in the matter.
Mr. PANSEGROUW (South Aftica) saw no objection to the general proposal, but
asked thyt the documents relating to import restrictions of South Africa and
classified as secret should not be derestrioted.
Thee:foedowing ndw arrangement for the continuous asries was agred
(i) documents produced up to 31 December of each y04r to be derestricted
on the following 31 March,
(ii) documents produced up to 30 June to be derestricted on the following
30 September,
t-Was further reed that the following documents of the Third Sessionr GATT/CP.6/SR.25
Page 3
GATT/CP.3/20 & Addenda, /36, /54, /60 & Rev. and Add., /64, /65, /73
& Rev. & Corr., and /85 -
concerning applications under Article XVIII, and GATT/CP.3/61 on the Chilean
request regarding nitrate subsidy, and those in the continuous series, GATT/CP/89
to /120, should be derestricted with immediate effect.
3. Publication of General Agreement Documents (GATT/CP.6/29 & Add.1)
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY recalled that at the Fifth Session the
Norwegian delegation had asked for the publication of certain basic documents
pertaining to the operation of the General Agreement. Document GATT/CP.6/29
contained a list of documents which the Secretariat suggested for publications.
delegations had been asked to comment, and the proposals in the Addendum were
the result of consultations, He pointed out that the budgetary provisions for
the forthcoming year would not be sufficient to cover the expense of the
publication of the three volumes listed, but possibly the volume containing
the proposed analytical index to articles and protocols could be done later.
Mr. SOLBERG (Norway) thought the whole series and, in particular, the
analytical index would be very useful. As for the budgetary difficulties
he thought the procedure followed for the Torquay Schedules, that each govern-
ment would pay for the copies required, would solve the problem.
M. LECUYER (France) also considered the publication would be very useful.
He thought, however, that a piecemeal issue was advisable not only on budgetary
grounds but also because experience would be gained which would lead to the
improvement of the later volumes. He welcomed the proposal of a historical
-introduction which, he suggested, should not be too short.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) also welcomed the publication.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, replying to Mr. Solberg, said that
his proposal regarding the financing of the expenditure involved would be of
great interest to the Secretariat. The Contracting Parties authorized
the Executive Secretary to publish Parts I and III and to submit Part II
to the Contracting Parties at the Seventh Session.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY recalled that the Secretariat had published two
progress reports on the operation of the General Agreement; judging by the
comments and enquiries received those publications had been successful and
could be considered as having served a useful purpose. He suggested that a
third progress report might be published before the Seventh Session but, as
on the previous occasions, he should be given authority by the Contracting
Parties. He would send a draft to any contracting party which would like to
see it, but of course this would not carry any implication of approving the
contents, the responsibility for which would rest entirely with the Secretariat. GATT/CP.6/SR.25
Page 4
The EXCUTIVE SECRETARY also suggested that the Contracting Parties might
sometime consider issuing an annual report on their activities, as was customary
with other international bodies. The development of their work made it more
and more desirable that such reports should be available to the public, and
if the idea commended itself to the contracting parties he would be glad to
give further consideration to it with a view to discussion at a subsequent
session.
Mr. ADARKAR (India), supporting the suggestions of the Executive Secretary,
said that the publication of reports would be necessary in view of the increasing
amount of intersessional work.
The proposal of the Executive Secretary that the Secretariat should publish
a third progress report was agreed.
5. Request of the Government of Liberia for authorization to renegotiate
certain item with France and the United States (GATT/CP.6/47).
Mr. DAVID (Liberia) stated that the Liberian Government maintained a tax
on luxury goods in order to provide the revenue required for its development
programme. Tariff concessions had been negotiated at Annecy on some of the
products affected by this tax, and in order not to violate its commitments under
the Agreement the Liberian Government had suspended the tax on those products.
It was not clear whether this tax could be reapplied, in accordance with the
provisions of Article III, and to clarify this point the Government wished to
hold discussions with the governments of Benelux, France and the United States.
If it should be found necessary, the Government would like to have authority to
open renegotiations on these concessions. Discussions and negotiations could
take place between sessions and a report could be submitted to the Seventh
Sessions.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) said that if the Liberian tax could be imposed
consistently with the provisions of Article III there would be no need for re-
negotiation. If not, it would be expedient to authorize the Government of
Liberia to re-negotiate. He supported the proposal.
M. LECUYER (France) said that although he had not received instructions
from his Government, he would not oppose the possibility of discussions with
the Government of Liberia and expressed his understanding of their difficulties.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) also agreed to discuss the problem with
the Government of Liberia although he could not express any view at the moment
owing to lack of instructions.
The Contracting Parties agreed to the holding of discussions between Liberia
and the three governments mentioned and that negotiations should take place if
necessary. GATT/CP.6/SR. 25
Page 5
6. Memorandum by the Delegation of Czechoslovakia concerning the Declaration
of the Contracting Parties on the suspension of obligations by the United
States and Czechoslovakia (GATT/CP.6/5/Add.2 and GATT/CP.6/49).
A point of order was raised by Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) who
questioned whether this item was on the agenda.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) contended that the inclusion in the Agenda had
been agreed when, on the previous days he had informed the Chairman that he
would submit a paper. The Chairman had replied that the matter could be taken
up after the submission of his memorandum, and no objection had been raised.
The CHAIRMAN read the record of the 14th meeting from which it appeared that
the representative of Czechoslovakia had been informed from the Chair that he
could, if he so desired, request the Contracting Parties to consider action by
Czechoslovakia on the withdrawal of concessions from the United States and
the Contracting Parties would then decide whether to place it on their Agenda.
A discussion followed as to whether the memorandum by the Delegation of
Czechoslovakia should be taken up as an item on the Agenda. Before a decision
was reached the discussion was adjourned.
The meeting rose at 6.50 p.m. |
GATT Library | xp275hj2849 | Summary Record of the Twenty-First Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, January 16, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 16/01/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.21/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xp275hj2849 | xp275hj2849_90270150.xml | GATT_140 | 369 | 2,313 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP. 5/SR. 21/Corr. 1
16 January 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 6. third paragraph
The statement by Mr. BYSTRICKY should read as follows:
"Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) said he did not understand quite
clearly the whole meaning of the special exchange agreements and that
it seemed to him the Working Party had done more or less theoretical
work as he could see no advantage at all in a special exchange agreement.
Czechoslovakia was not interested in this item, being a member of the
I.M.F., but, for his own information, he would be grateful if the
representative of the I.M.F. could tell him whether his opinion was
correct on the following matters: that membership in the Fund had
advantages which a special exchange agreement did not give:
1. The I.M.F. was a body of financial exports, while the GATT was
not;
2. The I. M. F. supplied a member with the currency of another member
in exchange for gold or for the currency of the member desiring
to make the purchase, but the GATT did not do this;
3. The I.M.F . as in permeanent session and supplied members with
all information they desired, i.e. information which they could
hardly obtain by themselves. The GATT could not supply such
information.
4. One of the most irmportant problems was the initial par value but
he thought that even with regard to this point, it was
adventageous to become a member of the Fund for the, simple
reason that if a country became a member of the Fund and its
initial par value was established and then it ceased to be a
Fund member the fact that its par value had been established would
greatly facilitate all procedure including the par value because
until the country in question makes any substantial change in
its financial and trade policy, its special exchange agreement
would not differ from its agreement with the Fund.
He felt there was no need for any special procedures. He would appreciate
an answer because if he was right then, in his opinion, there would be no
need for special exchange agreements at all." |
GATT Library | jg345nj4479 | Summary Record of the Twenty-First Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 2, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 02/11/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.21/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jg345nj4479 | jg345nj4479_90270222.xml | GATT_140 | 227 | 1,678 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR GATT/CP.6/SR.21/Corr.1
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 2 November 1951
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING
Mr. Tuominen's statement should be deleted and replaced by the followings
"Mr. TUOMINEN (Finland) stated that he had not hitherto taken part
in the discussion concerning the Belgian tax; but as this special
tax was also applied to Finnish products imported into Belgium
by Belgian governmental, provincial or local authorities, he
wished to reserve for his Government the right to approach
directly the Belgian Government in the near future.
"He believed that this could be done in the course of
bilateral negotiations which were soon to take place
between the two Governments."
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Sixième Session
COMPTE RENDU DE LA VINGT-ET-UNIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum
M. Tuominen (Finlande) a demandé que son intervention fût rapportée
en ces termes:
"M. Tuominon (Finlande) declare qu'il n'est pas intervenu jusqu'ici
dans la discussion concernant l'allocation familiale belge; mais étant
donné que cette taxe spéciale frappe également des produits finlandais
importés en Belgique per des authorités gouvernementales, provinciales
ou locales belges, il tient à réserver le droit de son gouvernement
de contacter directement le government belge dens un proche avenir.
"Il pense que cela pourrait être fait au cours de négotiations bilatéralsa
qui seront prochainement engagées entre les deux gouvernements." |
GATT Library | pp201jp8989 | Summary Record of the Twenty-First Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, October 23, 1951 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.21 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pp201jp8989 | pp201jp8989_90270221.xml | GATT_140 | 2,641 | 16,377 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR.21
26 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on
Tuesday, October 23, 1951 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. John MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Belgian Tax (Allocation familiale)
2. Report of Working Party 4 on Arrangements for
Tariff Negotiations.
3. Submission of Memorandum concerning the
Declaration of the Contracting Parties on the
suspension of obligations by the United States
and Czechoslovakia.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) recalled that at a previous meeting the represen-
tatives of Norway and Denmark had presented their governments' complaint
against the administration of the Belgian Law of 4 August 1930 with respect
to their countries. He regretted that, despite his government's sincere
wish to meet the desires of Norway and Denmark, he was not yet in a position to
give as favourable a reply an he had excited. He did not wish to place the
discussion on a legal basis but wanted to reach a s lution as between friendly
nations, but a complication had arisen which would make it impossible to resolve
the matter at the present session. Doubts had in fact been raised as to the
compatibility of the Law of 4 August 1930 with Article I of the Agreement,
which might require the submission to the Belgian Parliament of Articles 130
to 132 of the law of 4 August 1930 for amendment.
The Belgian government therefore thought that it would be more opportune
to review the whole question within the framework of their obligations under
the General Agreement and in the light of their review, decide whether to
meet the demands of the two governments by administrative action or submit
to their Parliament proposals for the amendment of Articles 130 to 132 of the
law,
Mr. BORRESEN (Norway) expressed his delegation's disappointment at the
delay with which they were faced and suggested it would not be possible to
put an end to the admitted discrimination against his country by administrative
action. They did not doubt that the Belgian government would do its utmost GATT/CP.6/SR.21
Page 2.
to settle the matter promptly and the Norwegian delegation would therefore
not pursue the matter further at the moment; they would, however, request
that the item be retained on the agenda of the. Contracting Parties for the
Seventh Session.
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) referred to a statement by the representa-
tive of Belgium to the effect that it was not yet clear in the mind of the
Belgian government whether the problem could be appropriately dealt with by
administrative action and recalled that in the case of another Scandinavian
country, whose social legislation was much the same as that of Denmark, a
solution had been found without resort to the Belgian Parliament. He there-
fore felt that a similar stop could be taken with regard to Denmark and
expressed the hope that this would be done and that a satisfactory solution
would be found long before the Seventh Session.
Mr. TREU (Austria) pointed out that his government had not intervened
in the discussion hitherto, although they were in a position similar to that
of Norway and Denmark with respect to the Belgian law under consideration,
because they had expected a solution to be found before the end of the session.
In view of the statement of Mr. Cassiers, however, he wished to reserve the
right of his government to put their case to the Belgian government.
Mr. TUOMINEN (Finland) also pointed out that the Belgian government had
been approached on this matter and that discussions on this matter were to
be held in two months' time,
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) thanked the representatives of Norway and Denmark
for accepting the delay and assured them that their request for urgent action
had been noted. While he was making his previous statement he had. received
information from his government that there appeared to be a good prospect
of dealing with the problem by administrative steps similar to those taken
for other countries. He added that he had noted the remarks of the repre-
sentatives of Austria and Finland which he would transit to his government,
but as each case had to be dealt with specifically he would advise that these
two countries present the details of their particular oases to the Belgian
government. He expressed the hope that satisfaction would be given to all
the interested parties well before tho Seventh Session.
The Contracting Parties agreed to accept the statement of the Belgian
representative to the effect that the matter would be investigated further
and that the latter hoped to be able to settle the matter promptly. Note
was also taken of the statements of the representatives of Austria and Fin-
land and it was decided to retain the question on the agenda for the Seventh
Session.
(GATT/CP.6/34 and Corr.1)
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) introducing the report explained that Part 1 of the
Report contained general considerations to explain to the Contracting Parties
the significance of the recommended procedures and to make then aware of certain Page 3.
questions. The second part contained the procedures which had been devised
for negotiations between contracting parties and governments wishing to
accede to the General Agreement and for negotiations amongst contracting
parties. The third part contained two model protocols to give effect to the
two types of negotiations.
It had been the aim of the Working Party to devise simpler procedures
than those which had been followed in the three large tariff negotiations
which had been held. They had borne in mind that the situation was not
exactly the same in the case of negotiations for the accession of countries
of small commercial importance as in the case of countries having widespread
commercial interests. It could in fact be expected that a small number of
contracting parties would want to negotiate with acceding governments which
had limited trading interests. In the case, however, of a commercially impor-
tant country it was possible that in view of considerations of commercial
policy some contracting parties might want the Contracting Parties to hold
a discussion regarding the accession of that country and in particular
whether negotiations to this end could in fact conveniently take place under
the proposed procedures. The report explained these difficulties and provided
for examination by the Contracting Parties of the application of a particular
country, should such an examination be requested by three or more countries.
In urgent cases it was felt that a special session could be called for the
purpose in accordance with normal procedure.
He wished further to call attention to the recognition by the Working
Party that contracting parties were free to negotiate between themselves
outside the framework of the General Agreement. If, however, the intention
was that the results should be incorporated in the Schedules annexed to the
Agreement, it was desirable that appropriate procedures be established. Al-
though it was appropriate that two participating governments should be able
to give effect to the schedules of concessions by their own signatures alone,
the incorporation of the concessions in the Agreement was of interest to all,
Accordingly the model protocol provided that it would be open for signature
by all contracting parties.
He wished to bring to the attention of the Contracting Parties the
provisions for the withholding or withdrawal of concessions in the event
that the protocol were signed by one of the parties but not by the other or
others. Doubts had been expressed as to whether a contracting party thus
withholding concessions should give notification to all other contracting
parties and afford then the opportunity to consult. Some doubt had been
expressed on this point as it night be construed as giving a right of compen-
sation to a contracting party which had made no concessions on the basis of
the concessions withdrawn or withhold. The Working Party had, however,
concluded that such a construction could not be placed on these provisions
and that, on this understanding the Annecy and Torquay precedents should be
followed.
He also explained that the Working Party had provided for the situation
in which negotiations such as those which ever under consideration might be
concluded long before a session of the Contracting Parties. To meet this GATT/CP.6/SR.21
Page 4.
contingency the Working Party had drafted model protocols for use by the
parties to such negotiations, the results of which would, by the use of the
model protocols, be incorporated in the General Agreement, without waiting
for the convening of a session of the Contracting Parties.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) expressed his thanks to the Chairman and
members of the working party and to the Secretariat for the excellent work
which had been done on the American proposal.
Mr. CISNEROS (Cuba), while expressing his great interest in the subject,
regretted that there had not been sufficient time to submit the report to
his government and, being without instructions, he had to reserve their posi-
tion.
He was particularly concerned with the implications of the provisions.
for negotiations between contracting parties and would wish to obtain clari-
fication. It was not clear why in Rule 2 no precise period had been fixed
for the time to elapse between the submission of request lists and the
-opening of actual negotiations. It was, in fact, important for a contracting
party to examine such request lists in order to determine whether it had a
material interest in. the negotiations before the negotiations actually started.
He also believed that the right to participate in such discussions was not
well established and would like further clarification. He felt it should
also be made unequivocally clear whether "supplementary negotiations" related
to the negotiations covered by rules 1 and 2 or, specifically, to those under
Rule 3. Finally, he did not see how results could be put into force without
consulting the Contracting Parties. He knew that the working party had devoted
considerable tine to the problem and asked the reason why no solution had been
found. As regards the action under Article XXV: 5(a) he thought that all the
implications should be carefully studied and that 'no hasty decisions should
be taken.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) wished to record the dissatisfaction of his
delegation with Rule 2 of Part II-A of the Report. Considering the number
of contracting parties to the General Agreement, they felt that the number
suggested was too small. The whole purpose of the exercise was to facilitate
tariff negotiations and the limitation to three of the number of contracting
parties who could demand a general discussion on the accession of any particu-
lar country would not be in accordance with that aim. Under article XXIII
a country could accede if it obtained a two-thirds majority, and whilst one
could understand that any objectors should have an opportunity to express
their views before the Contrecting Parties, the number of such objections
required to bring the matter before the Contracting Parties should be in-
creased to say six or seven. This would be a compromise between the number
suggested and the minority of the Contracting Parties which was required to
defeat a request for accession. He did not feel that there was much value
in the contention that in urgent cases a special session could be called in
accordance with the rules of procedure, because it did not appear to him
likely that agreement would be found to call a speial Session for the pur-
pose. GATT/CP.6/SR.21
Page 5.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy), in reply to the representative of India, repeated
that the working party recognized the arbitrary character of the figure chosen
but he wished to point out that even in choosing such a small figure they
were in fact deviating from the precise rule that applications for accession
should be examined by the Contracting Parties.
In reply to the question raised by the representative of Cuba, he
admitted that the fixing of a tine limit under Rule 3 might have been
useful but he did not think that any prejudice would result from the omission.
He felt that. the question would be even less important in the case of negotia-
tions between contracting parties.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) said that as there were no support for his
proposal he would not press it further,
Mr. CISNEROS (Cuba) pointed out that there did not appear to be any
special reason for not fixing a specific period for the submission of request
lists and suggested that this should be done.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) saw no difficulty in accepting the proposal of the
delegate of Cuba but recalled that the working party had been mainly concerned
with giving the greatest measure of elasticity to the procedures.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY shared the view of Mr. Di Nola and saw no prac-
tical utility in specifying a period. The parties would consider among
themselves the date on which they would exchange request lists and he had no
doubt that such a date would be sufficiently advanced to afford to any
contracting party the opportunity to determine whether or not it was materially
affected by the scope of the negotiations.
On a suggestion of Mr. CISNEROS (Cuba) in connection with paragraph
6 of Part II-A, the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY proposed to insert in the last line
of paragraph 6, after the word "contracting parties", the words; "as required
by Article XXXIII of the General Agreement ...".
The amendment was accepted by the Contracting Parties.
On Rule 2 of Part II-B a discussion again arose on the question of the
time which was to elapse between the submission of request lists and the
beginning of negotiations.
Agreement was reached through an amendment to Rule 2, proposed by
Mr. LEDDY (United States) to delete from the first line of the paragraph the
words: "As far as possible ..." and to substitute therefor: "At least
thirty days ....."
All sections of the Report having been approved separately, the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY pointed out that although it was not the practice of the
Contracting Parties to take a formal vote on reports of working parties when
there was a clear majority for the proposals, they were here confronted
with a special case, As indicated on page 5 of the report, once the concession GATT/CP.6/SR.21
Page 6.
had entered into force by the signature of the negotiating contracting
parties the schedules would be regarded as Schedules to the General Agree-
ment. Accordingly the provisions of Article II would attach to the concession
including those obligations which were defined in relation to the date of the
General Agreement, Following the precedent of Torquay that date was changed
in the model protocol to the date of the conclusion of the negotiations in
question. It was, however, not admissible that such a modification of the
General Agreement should be made by two or a small number of contracting
parties, It was therefore necessary to waive in accordance with the pro-
visions of Article XXV:5(a) the obligations of the contracting parties con-
cerned to the extent that the obligations in the model protocol might in any
respect be less onerous than those under Article II of the Agreement. It
was, therefore, suggested that the Rules and the model protocols should be
approved by a sufficient majority of the contracting parties to satisfy the
voting requirements of Article XXV:5(a).
The Rules and model protocols were proved by 31 votes in favour,
none against The delegate of Cuba reserved the position of his government.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslbvakia) announced that he intended to present to the
Contracting Parties a memorandum regarding action by his government on the
withdrawal of concessions from the United States.
The CHAIRMAN invited the delegate of Czechoslovakia to submit his
memorandum and the matter could be taken up at a later, meeting.
The meeting rose at 7 p.m. |
GATT Library | nf671gy7981 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, January 3, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/01/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.24/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.24-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nf671gy7981 | nf671gy7981_90270156.xml | GATT_140 | 50 | 319 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 24/Corr.1
3 January 1951
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
C O T rT sifOn
OURTH MEETINGD OF TIE a MfTYFOMIC 1
Corrie, dum
He 6, fi f-r --ph
lhe-ore "listhdl ie thb fourt. Lin, should re.d "referred to", |
GATT Library | xp393rq3937 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Thursday, 25 October 1951, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.24 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xp393rq3937 | xp393rq3937_90270225.xml | GATT_140 | 2,171 | 14,237 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP. 6/SR.24
29 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixrth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Thursday, 25 October 1951, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. S. A. HASNIE (Pakistan)
Subjects discussed: 1. Nicaragua - El Salvador Free-Trade Area.
2. Report of Working Party 6 on Balance-of-
Payment Restrictions.
In the absence of the Chairman, Mr. S. A. HASNIE (Pakistan)
was unanimously elected Chairman for the meeting.
1. Nicaragua - El Salvador Free-Trade Area (GATT/CP.6/24 and Add. 1),
(Resumption of Discussion). P ad
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) stated that, together with other Latin-
American delegates, namely those of Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Chile,
Hatti and Peruk his Delegation had been studying the proposal to create a
free-trade area .et.een the two countries, They had found that this
proposal was.most likely to lead to improved trade relations outside as
well as within the Nicaraguan - El Salvador area, and that the two Governments
had in every respect complied with the letter and the spirit of Article XXIV
of the General Agreement, and, in particular with paragraph 4 of that
Article which advocated closer integration of national economies.
Mr. SIPSp$ (United States) stated that his Delegation had carefully
studied the wsys in which Nicaragua and El Salvador were implementing their
plans and had been much impressed with the careful consideration which had
evidently b en given to comply with.the rules of the General Agreement. It
,oer, se argu d, howevnrp thatsomeadeaailed requirements hid still to be
met; it had been noticed that Article III of the Treaty authorized the two
countries to use quantitative restrictions, if necessary, for certain items,
while Article IV made provision for later modifications to be made to the
sccedcle of items from whioh duties, as between the two countries have
heen removed.zAlthougl he felt he had to call attention to these deviations
from Article XXIV, he had been impressed by the reassurances given by the
Delegates of Nicaragua and El Salvador. In general, the Treaty was in con-
Xormityewieh Article SXIV and ho proposed that developments be kept under
review by the Contracting Parties on the basis of the reports which the
Delegate of Nicaragua had piomised to supply. In thts connection he proposed
an amendment to the second paragraph of the draft decision prepared by the
bednging Se6retaby rdlrtiU t e words "ftom time'to time" in the sixth line GATT/CP. 6/SR. 24
Page 2 '
of that 0a30agrneneaacacubst" " stng 'on or before the Oth Ju.3 e dh yearbuo
that the Government of Nicaragua would submit an annual report on action
under Articles III and IV of the Treaty.
Mr. COUILLAR (Canada) remarked that he also had been much impressed
by the statements made ,y,the Delegates of Nicaragua and El Salvadorp and
while he wowld aghehstsat some elements of the Treaty -ere perbape not yet
entirely in accordance with Article XXIV, he realised that the two countries
h d tmo take into account existing economic andcomercial relations of a
special character. Hj thought the Contracting Parties would be Justified in
accepting the essurances given to tho offact that the rulas of the General
Agreement would ba oVyed.
Mr, PANSEGROU' (South Africa) stated his agreement with the various
points of view wxprussed and his awarqnoss of the difficulties that would
inevitnbny be encountered bystso two Governments ir realizing their plano. He
hopod thatavavailaformation .n.progress would be made ra7alable annually,
Mr. LECK:E (United Kingdom) said that, although the information
hitherto a ailable to his'Doiogation had caused them.to feel some doubts
about the Treabybythe statements made on the previous day 'M the two
Deleeaeouos had reassured him, Ho Joon'd with praviqus speakers in hoping
alvador wou'iaty itpok4dihNidiaigin -El S&l6 i. dilId be *mIemented In
ismorit of cheereneral Ath the letter nd Spit t' Gteza Agreement.
ceoSecntng ion the papora presented by tho .eretarat on this question he
suggested 'tli documents of this character and quality would be much welcomed
by his DtJ.gation in the futuree
.! Ov-T.;LS (Belgit r) alsQpoke in support of the actionbeing
Jaken by the'ontracting Partiesawith rogard to this free-trade are,. He
supported Mr. Leckie in his praise for the documentation supplied by the
exscutivsi Secretary and his agreement that amilar documentation would be of
Lnipluabie he~l J' the Contracting Parties .n their future work.
ehe Deetyireatyp'oving phe.F'ph'Trado Aroa T eeau under paragra'n
10 tf .^ticlo XXIV, as amended in accordance with the proposal of the
d unanimously.legate,
MrARPEORTOCtMRRO (Nicaragua), thanked the Contracting Parties for
thair decision aratediteeaneeehnseGo'vorrmonts intentions to comply with the
request of submitaing an .nnua. report :
lvEl Salvador)ela3ovee) else oxprogsod his eratitede to tho
otratncting Parties. -
The EXECUTIVEommentsAomYereferred to the cQmonts made on the
documents which he had submieted; inethose notes h had ondeavoured to.live
up to the rwoussts nad Pary the CentractengesstiesSessing tho present osesion
entation a swouldoenable atineso sions ecisions more take ddciions xMlo.
, however, thatshe habholewo-nalat 'ebyad been byibled to do this br the
the delegatesen bandaraguaoandvElof Nichomgua £iwhom Salvador with wbod
theeSecreeariat had bothe questioniscuss tctingestioctingly. The ContraO4Wg
eforeerealise thatoforo reaeido ehae thd renderariat coult rondar the GATT/CP.6/SR. 24
Page 3
services requested only in so far as the complementary assistance from
contracting parties themselves would be available, and that by giving the
Secretariat more responsibility in this matter the contracting parties
equally took more responsibility upon themselves.
2. Report of Working Party 6 on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions;
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) Chairman of the Working Party, introduced
the draft report on quantitative import restrictions and the discriminatory
application of these restrictions. Although the main lines of the draft
prepared by the Secretariat had been retained, the Working Party's draft
included substantial revisions and was considerably shorter. Part II of the
Report would contain short notes on the import restrictions applied in each
country; the Secretariat was preparing these summaries with the help of the
delegations concerned and they would not be submitted for formal approval
of the Contracting Parties.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that the moment at which the report was
being produced gave it special importance since it marked the end of the
transitory period of recuperation which many countries had been going through
after the war. For this reason, countries which were still compelled to
apply import restrictions would have to examine the report with special care.
The situation varied in many respects from country to country and it would
therefore be found that, if the report gave prominence to some of these
but left others unmentioned, the resulting picture could not be a true one.
Although much progress had boon made, even in countries which had
suffered severely from the war, the balance-of-payment position of most of
them was still weak. So much was clear from the report. But the report
did not adequately mention the consequences which countries had to face
resulting from this state of affairs. The General Agreement allowed countries
whose foreign payments position was unbalanced to adopt or maintain measures
restricting imports in order to correct this situation, and it allowed these
restrictions to be applied with a view to the fact that some commodities had
a more essential character than others. But the inevitable consequence of
this was that restrictions applied under Article XII, even if they were
applied on a non-discriminatory basis, acquired a discriminatory effect in
relation to countries which exported goods considered by other countries as
non-essential. But if these countries should also have to eliminate non-
essential goods from their own imports, the result could not be other than
a cumulative procession of import prohibitions finally resulting in reducing
the trade of all countries concerned. And since imports could only be paid
for by exports, the consequence for countries exporting non-essential
products must be a reduction of supplies to a lower level than would exist
if no restrictions were authorized under the General Agreement for balance-
of-payment reasons.
Mr. Di Nola quoted the case of Italy as an example. His country
was heavily dependent on imports of essential raw materials and, also of
some essential foodstuffs. On the other hand, it produced large quantities GATT/CP.6/SR. 24
Page 4
of so-called non-essential goods such as fruit vegetables, wine, hats and
other hand-made products, which were the first to suffer from import res-
trictions applied by other countries. The adverse effects of such
restrictions were onlly being moderated through bilateral agreements with
those countries. This was not to say that discriminatory effects which
inevitably resulted from bilateral trade agreements, necessarily had
protectionist aims. Whenever his country had been able to liberate its
exports to other countries, Italian import policy, towards such countries,
had been relaxed accordingly. Italy had gone furthest in liberalising trade
under the Organization for European Economic Cooperation.
He knew that the situation of his country was well known to the
contracting parties, but he would point out that that situation had not been
sufficiently brought out in the report, and particularly not in paragraph
45 in which it would have found its proper place. For this reason, the
Italian delegate who had been present at Working Party 6 as an observer had
requested that this omission be made good. This request had not been met
and he felt it his duty to point this out to the Contracting Parties as a
shortcoming of the Report. Although this was not the only omission, he
would not like to prolong the debate at this stage. He felt obliged to
point out that, of late, a new wave of restrictions on the exports of
essential raw materials and industrial equipment had been noticeable; this
policy had been maintained together with measures of double pricing. Such
measures were obviously harmful to the restoration of normal international
commercial behaviour. It would, in his view, be impossible even to pretend
to abolish import restrictions, whether of a discriminatory character or
not, if, at the same time, measures which put a country at an artificial
disadvantage in international trade were not eliminated.
It was agreed that the statement of the Italiah delegate should be
given in extense in the record of the meeting.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) described the report in its present form as a
compromise arrived at by those who viewed the general blance-of-payment
position of contracting parties optimistically, and th-se who took a graver
view. He suggested that paragraph 57 of the Report, which listed the
provisions of the General Agreement under which contracting parties were
applying their restrictions in a discriminatory manner, had not been
elaborated sufficiently and that future sessions of the Contracting Parties
would have to examine this matter further.
1. PEREZ CISNEROS (Cuba) stated that he would withhold his
comments on the Report until the Working Party had submitted its recom-
mendations on paragraphs (b) and (c) of its terms of reference.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that since Part II of the Report had not
been prepared by the Working Party, the notes on restrictions in force would
lack authority. Although the Contracting Parties could remedy this by
approving Part II at the Seventh Session, he would enquire what was the
intention of the Working Party in this respect. GATT/CP.6/SR. 24
Page 5
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) replied that the notes in Part II would
contain only the principal features of the practices of each contracting
party; they would be purely factual, and it was not possible for the
Working Party to check the correctness of the information supplied by
Governments. The Report would contain a note making it clear that the
Contracting Parties did not accept responsibility for the accuracy of these
statements.
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) joining in the compliments
paid to the Chairman for the work done by the Working Party, did not think,
however, that the Report in its present form presented a major improvement
on the first draft, and he submitted that a better way to make a report of
this nature was to entrust the work to one single body instead of to a
number of delegations He would also request that, in case this report was
published, it should be stated clearly in the preface that it dealt only with
import restrictions for balance-of-payments reasons and was not intended to
cover other restrictive trade practices which might have equally harmful
effects.
Mr. LECKIE (United Kingdom) expressed his agreement with the first
opinion expressed by the Netherlands delegate. Although he had no objection
to the substance of the Report, he was not satisfied with its general
nature. A report on these matters should help the contracting parties and
the general public to appreciate better the difficulties encountered in
international trade; the Secretariat draft had provided the elements of a
report of this character. No useful purpose was served by publishing a
report which merely reflected compromises between opposing views, and
therefore ho questioned whether the present method of producing such reports
was satisfactory; he suggested that these methods should be reconsidered
before another such report was prepared.
The meeting adjourned at 1.10 p.m. |
GATT Library | md862mv5313 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Second Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations Geneva, on Wednesday, October 24, 1951 at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 26, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 26/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.22 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/md862mv5313 | md862mv5313_90270223.xml | GATT_140 | 2,208 | 14,076 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.22
26 October 1951
ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at the Palais des NationsGeneva,
on Wednesday, October 24, 1951 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Torquay Protocol: Decision to extend tine
limit for signature
2. Request by Uruguay for an extension of the
date to sign the Annecy and Torquay Protocols
3. Report of Working Party 3 on Administration
of the Agreement
4. Report of Working Party 1 on the International
Chamber of Commerce Resolutions
1.
Torquay Protocol: Decision to extend the time limit for
signature (GATT/CP.6/45)
The Decision to extend the time limit for signature of the Torquay
Protocol was adopted by 31 votes to none.
2.
Request by Uruguay for an extension of the date to sign the
Annecy and Torquay Protocol (GATT/CP.6/46)
The request by Uruguay for an extension of the time limit for
signature of the Annecy and Torquay Protocols was agreed, and the formal
Decision was adopted by 31 votes to none.
3.
Report of Working Party 3 on Administration of the Agreement
(GATT/CP.6/41)
Mr. SUETENS (Belgium) introduced the report and drew attention to
various points contained therein. The Working Party had agreed that provision
should be made to deal with urgent cases arising between sessions and that
the work of the regular sessions could be shortened and facilitated it
more extensive preparation were undertaken in advance. As an example of the
need for the former, he mentioned the Schuman Plan which would certainly come
before the Contracting Parties before the Seventh Session and where there would
be the need for immediate action. The Working Party proposed that an ad hoc GATT/CP.6/SR.22
Page 2.
Committee for agenda and intersessional business be established. When other mat-
ters arose between sessions they should be dealt with either in accordance with
the intersessional procedures already established,or the committee should appoint a
working party to investigate and report to the Seventh Session. With regard
to the arrangements envisaged for the Secretariat, he stressed the importance
of cooperation between contracting parties and the Executive Secretary in order
to assist the latter in carrying out his duties. Finally, he wished to
emphasize that this committee, was thought of as an experiment, and that at the
Seventh Session the arrangements should be reviewed in the light of the
experience gained.
Dr. BOTHA (South Africa) thanked the Chairman of the Working Party
and also the delegations of Canada, the United Statee and others who had
supported the original plan for a standing committee and had since accepted
this less comprehensive proposal in the spirit of cooperation.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) said that his delegation was prepared to
accept the report in its present form but hoped that the Contracting Parties
at their Seventh Session would consider the possibility of strengthening the
committee provided for in the report and particularly of coordinating the
various types of intersessional procedures at present in existence.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said that he continued to feel that
an intersessional committee as envisaged in the report would serve no useful
purpose..' In fact, he did not understand how it was possible to weaken the
Secretariat, which would be the effect of the creation of the committee, and,
at the same time to argue for increasing the staff of the Secretariat, as was
proposed at meetings of the Budget Working Party. He opposed the creation
of the committees
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) said that he had been among those who opposed
setting up an intersessional committee in the fear that to establish such a
procedure while the Agreement was still in the courseof expansion might only
serve to weaken it. However, the fact that the powers of the proposed committee
were strictly limited in the new proposal had completely reassured him. The
committee would partially relieved the Secretariat of some of its duties while
in no way diminishing its work He was glad to see that the Working Party
had taken into account the interests of the various groups of countries among
The report was then discussed paragraph by paragraph. In Section
B - "The Secretariat" an amendment was made to the last sentence of the first
paragraph at the suggestion of Dr. Hagemann (Germany) (see document GATT/
QP.6/41/Corr.1) . '
The entire report was then adopted subject to the reservation of
Cchaboslovakia.
TheHAIRMANKM stated that he would propose the composition of the
intersessional committee at a later meeting. GATT/CP.6/SR.22
Page 3.
4.Report of Working Party 1 on the International Chamber of Commerce
Resolutions (GATT/CP.6/36)
Mr. ASHFORD (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Working Party, intro-
duced the report and explained that the Working Party had examined with care
and in detail the three Resolutions of the International Chamber of Commerce
which had been referred to it. The length of' its work was not due to any
major division in the views of the Working Party but rather to the technical
nature of the subject and the precise drafting required. He referred to the
three annexes to the report The Draft Convention on Samples represented
an up-to-date version of the 1935 draft convention. It included certain pro-
provisions not included in the original convention, the most important being the
exemption from import licensing, It also excluded the question of tourist
literature which had been in the original convention as this was considered
to be covered sufficiently by international instruments established since
that time, The Working Party suggested that all contracting parties study
the Draft Convention closely before the Seventh Session and submit to the
Secretariat any comments for circulation, The contracting parties were also
asked to furnish details concerning their existing concessions on samples
and the extent to which they would be prepared to modify their present treat-
ment. The report also contained two sets of recommendations, one on documen-
tary requirements on the import of goods and one on consular formalities.
The Working Party thought that these should also be considered by contracting
parties in the interval before the Seventh Session.
Mr. RENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) welcomed the suggestion that the Draft
Convention be submitted to governments as it was certainly a document requiring
study by competent authorities Although not wishing to enter into a dis-
cussion of the Draft Convention at the present meeting he would like the
contracting parties to bear in mind certain considerations He referred
particularly to the Annex to Article II. The report stated that, if the
Annex were included, each country would favour the inclusion of its own pro-
ducts in the list. He could not agree with this reasoning, However, if the
Annex were included, as an elaboration of the rule contained in Article II,
he considered that the categories should be more general. The present list was
quite extensive with regard to manufactured products but did not include raw
materials. This seemed a serious omission as it was quite as necessary to have
samples of raw materials. He asked the contracting parties to consider this
matter before the Seventh Session and stated that if it were decided to main-
tain the Annex, Turkey would submit proposals for elaborating the list.
Mr. LECUYER (France) thought the Turkish delegates remarks showed
how difficult the Working Party's task had been and how wise it was to ask
governments to consider and comment on the draft texts, This work was of a
special importance because it was the first time the Contracting Parties had
directly intervened in the question of customs formalities. In so doing they
were carrying out the obligations of Article VIII of the Agreement. This was
a particularly difficult task in view of the widely different practices - and
practices often of very long standing - in the various countries He congratu-
lated the Chairman of the Working Party on his competent direction of the work
and thoughtthat the Contracting Parties should also thank the International
Chamber of Commerce both for their assistance in the work itself and for having
been in some sense the originators. GATT/DP.6/SR.22
Page 4.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) said that his delegation welcomed the
Draft Convention on Samples and thought it would facilitate the flow of trade.
Many countries already granted liberal customs treatment to samples but to
conventionalize such treatment would be a groat advantage. The Draft
Convention was a marked improvoment on the 1935 Convention. His Government
intended to give careful study to the text and he would only say at this
stage that his delegation was in agreement with others who thought that the
Annex to Article II weakened the Article. No list could be exhaustive and
to include a list at all was unwise. The recommendations on documentary
requirements and consular formalities were also very useful and, in fact,
since the contracting parties were committed to reduce such procedural
complexitios, it seemed to him that the recommendations should be adopted at
the present session rather than be submitted to governments for consideration
as suggested in the Report. The recommendations were neither mandatory nor
very far reaching. If, however, it appeared that this would cause difficul-
ties for some contracting parties at the present time, he would not press the
matter to a vote. He did wish to state, however, that if these recommen-
dations were submitted to governments for consideration in the interval, his
delegation intended to make proposals that would considerably strengthen the
standards set up for consular formalities.
The Draft Convention was then taken up article by article. Articles
I to VII wore approved.
Article VIII. Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) considered the Convention should be
drafted in a liberal spirit and should not create difficulties in the
administration of customs formalities. The original convention contained a
clause which excluded from arbitration procedure the findings of customs
officials. Its omission from the now draft would, in his view, make it
more difficult for governments to accept tho latter. The types of merchan-
dise which could be called samples of negligible value were so varied that
they rust be decided upon by customs officials; if it wore possible to
submit complaints on such items to arbitration customs procedure would become
very complicated.
Mr. ASHFORD (Chairman of the Working tarty) explained that the Working
Party had carefully considered the view of the representative of Italy. The
corresponding article in the 1935 convention continued an exception for the
decision of customs officials on samples of no commercial value. The
Working Party had felt however that any dispute on this matter should fall
under the arbitration provisions of Article VIII and that no questions should
be excluded. Furthermore, he would point out that ..Article VIII referred to
disputes between governrments and not to disputes between the individual trader
and the customs authority in a particular country. It was apparent that only
after many complaints by individual customs authorities was there the like-
lihood that such a dispute would be taken up by the government of the
individual trader.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) suggested that paragraphs 2 and 3 might bo re-
arranged and agreed that this drafting question could be considered by
governments in the interval. GATT/CP.6/SR.22
Page 5.
Mr. DI NOIA (Italy) said the matter could be discussed in detail
later. He would point out that if the Annex to Article II containing the
list of samples were included there was even more reason for adopting his
suggestion.
The remainder of the Draft Convention was agreed and also the Annexes
B and C containing the draft recommendations on documenntary requiements for
the importation of goods and on consular fomalities. The report itself
was then taken up and it was agreed that the entire report, including the
draft recommendations, should be sent to the International Chamber of Cmmerce
as well as the Draft Convention on Samples.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether there was any support for the United
Kingdom proposal that Parts II and III recommendations on documentary, re-
quirments and on consular fomalities) be adopted at this session,
Mr. PEREZ CISNEROS (Cuba), Mr.VALLADAO (Brazil) and Mr. MATHUR
(India) said that their delegations were not in a position to adopt these
proposals and preferred to submit them to their Governments for consideration.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) said that in these circumstances he
would not press his proposal.
Mr. TAUBLR (Czechoslovakia) explained that he continued to believe
that the Draft Convention sumitted was not within the scope of the Agreement
and he could not therefore agree to it. In his opinion it favoured the
more developed countries at the expense of the so-called econmnicaIly under-
developed countries and he did not think that it served any useful purpose.
Mr. AHMAD (Pakistan) said that he had stated at the original noting
that the 1935 convention favoured the more developed countries. However, he
considered that the draft convention served a useful purpose and his Governm-
ent was prepared to give it careful consideration.
The report was dopted subject to the reservation of the delegate of
Czechoslovakia.
It was greed that teo eoport be derestricted at he , close of
the session.
The CHIARMAN thanked the Working Party and particularly its
Chairman, Mr. Ashford, for the exellent work that had been done on this
very complicated and technical subject.
The meeting rose at 1.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | vs928ph7949 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 2, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 02/11/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.27/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.27+Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vs928ph7949 | vs928ph7949_90270231.xml | GATT_140 | 41 | 300 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
TARIFFS
ON
AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/SR.27/Corr .1
2 November 1951
ENGLISH ONLY
Corrigendum
Page 1
The date in the heading should read:
26 October 1951 |
GATT Library | gf605nf7450 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Friday, 27 October 1951, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 30, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 30/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.27 and GATT/CP.6/SR.27+Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gf605nf7450 | gf605nf7450_90270230.xml | GATT_140 | 3,652 | 23,635 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP .6/SR .27
TARIFFS AND TRADE 30 October 1951
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Friday, 27 October 1951, at 2.30 p,m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Report of Intersessional Working Party on the Dis-
parity of European Tariffs.
2. Special Exchange Agreements.
3. Free Entry into Italy of Libyan Goods.
4. Status of Protocols and Schedules.
5. Report of Working Party 5 on the Budget,
6. Memorandum by the French Delegation on a European.
Coal and Steel Pool.
7. Appointment of Committee on Agenda and Intersessional
Business,
8. United States Restrictions on Dairy Products.
9.. Date and Place of Seventh Session.
10. Closing Statement of the Chaiman.
1. Report of Intersessional Working Party on the Disparity of European
Tariffs (GATT/CP.6/53).
Dr. BOTHA (South Africa) recalled that the Intersessional Working Party
had been established as a result of the memorandum presented by the delegates
of 10 countries in Torquay. The 10 countries had been unable to submit
proposals for the consideration of the Working Party, which as a consequence
had not met before the opening of the Sixth Session. At the beginning of the
Session the French delegation had submitted to the Contracting Parties for
inclusion in the Agenda a proposal aiming at the reduction of customs tariffs
generally.
The Contracting Parties had decided that this matter could not be placed
on the Agenda, but the Working Party was invited to give a preliminary exami-
nation to the proposal in conjunction with the Torquay proposals for a reduction
of the disparity in European tariffs. GATT/OP 6/SR .27
Page 2
The Working Party first heard a report on the activities of the Group
of Ton since Torquay. Members of the Working; Party differed widely on the
question of the relationship between the Torquny plan and the wider French
plan. It was agreed the priority should be given to consideration of the
latter, although without prejudi'ce to the consideration of the Torquay plan.
The question of indusitrially underdeveloped countries was raised and the
French Delegation agreed that the initial examination of this plan should be
limited to the more highly developed countries. sub-group was then formed
to undertake a study of the plan from the point of view of its application
to themselves. In view of all these problems and difficulties the Working
Party requested that its duration be cxtended as- well as its terms of
reference. The Working Party also suggested that Germany be added to its
members and that, the sub -group be allowed to adopt other signatories of the
Torquay memorandum not members the Working Party.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) thanked the French delegation for the under-
standing shown for the, point of view of under-developed countries. In this
connection he proposed the insortion of a sentence at the end of the second
sub-paragraph of paragraph of the report reading as follows:
"In view, however, of the fears expressed by the representatives of
the under--developed countries, the French Delegation was agreeable
to their proposal being examine, for the present, by the group
mentioned in paragraph 7 above, without projudice to the stand of
the other contrating parties',
Mr. PAPATSONIS ( co) supported the proposal of the Indian delegate.
N.PHILIP (France) thanked the Working Party and particulularly the
Benelux delegation for the understand shown in the discussion of the French
proposal and for their, willingness to give priority to its consideration.
The French delegation was aware that although its proposal was addressed to
all contracting parties, the special difficulties of some governments and
especially those of under-developed countries, should always be kept in mind.
The suggestion that the plan should first be studied by the more developed
countries and only later examined in relation to the less developed ones
Was quite acceptable to his delegation. He agreed to the amendment suggested
by the Indian delegate
The CHAIRMAN explained that if the recommendation of the Working Party
to extend its terms of reference were accepted it would be appropriate to
change the name of the Working Party to "Intersessional Working Party on the
Reduction of Tarif'f Levels,"
The report as amended and the now title of the Working Party
wore adopted. GATT/CP.6/SR.27
Page 3
2. Special Exchange Agreements (GATT/CP.6/18/Add.2)
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY recalled that this subject had been discussed
early in the session but that certain decisions had been deferred pending
further information. It was now suggested that the Contracting Parties
should adopt the stattments submitted by the Fund in GATT/CP.6/33 as their
report required under Article XI on exchange restrictions in force in
Haiti and Indonesia. As for the report required for 1952, the Contracting
Parties might request the Fund to supply the same assistance as was
provided for the 1951 report. Article XI also required consultation on
the retention of Er"'.L' restrictions to take place not later than March
1st 1952, and procedures for these consultations were also recomended.
The terms of a decision to extend the time limit for action by Burma under
Article :A.; 6 of the General Agreement were given at the and of the paper.
Mr. KARTADJOEMMENA (Indonesia) said that his government was grateful
to the International Monetary Fund for the report it had applied on exchange
restrictions in Indonasia, and he stated that Indonesia would be prepared
to enter into direct consultation with the Fund in 1952 in the manner
envisaged in the Secretariat note.
The Note by the Executive Secretary was considered paragraph by paragraph
and was approved without modification except for the addition, at the sug-
gestion of Mr. LECKLE (United Kingdom), of the words "where appropriate any"
before "determination of the Fund" at the end of paragraph 4. The
Contracting Parties therefore agreed.
(i) to adopt the ' w'i '\ 'i''l _.;'r'^ -.with the
additional data submitted by the Indonesian delegation (GATT/CP.6/
33 and Add.1) as their 1951 report under Article XI of the special
exchange agreements with Haiti and Indonesia.
(ii) to request the Fund to provide the same assistance for the pro-
paration of their report under Article XI in 1952.
(iii) to authorise the Chairman to seek an underrstanding with the Fund, as
envisaged in Article XIII;5 of the special exchange agreements, in
order to enable direct consultations to take place between contracting
parties and the Fund, and
(iv) to extend until the opening of the Seventh Session the time limit
for action by the Government of Burma pursuant to Article XV; 6 of
the General Agreement, to becomee a moyber of the Fun or to enter
into a special exchange agreement with the Contracting Parties.
3. Italian Request for a Waiver jnne1CAzist for a Ipermit rd-r irticle XXV to rcrrit the continued
ts (GATT/CP.6/54)Fr*TATTxCP.tu..s k.1/'6/4 J
. .
y decidedTheecFUeE SrC e Cractinf, Pr thoy dccicdcd
taly to permit the continued appli-earlte o rnnedthe;liwaivcr rcqu:sted by I
tain ciation of speciao cusor'.s nrent c' c raiinken
a fhrr .oe on which the waiver should end. The Unitedin en thc fic, t
had suggested September shadStates deEoehaEdecutive S su-,,stcc 8optc 1952, but the xCotiv Secretary
rable.thr4bt trbh 30 ight :,.Wrblo. GATT/CP.6/SR. 27
Page 4
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that since Libya would probably gain its
independence before January 1, 1952, a definite decision must be taken to
avoid any sudden change in the Italian customs régime applied to Libyan
products. He agreed to the date of September 30, 1952.
The second consideration of the draft Decision was amended by the
insertion, after "January 1952" of the words "or such earlier date when the
Libyan Kingdom obtains its independence".
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) enquired whether the Italian Delegate
insisted on the retention of the reference to the special treatment existing
before and after the war, as this appeared to him to set an unnecessary and
undesirable precedent.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) thought the clause necessary and logical in the
context of the draft Decision. The General Agreement made no specific
provision for cases such as this one and any contracting party which
considered itself damaged by the continuation of the special Customs régime
had the opportunity to make this known. No contracting party had so far
made any complaint.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) did not insist on the point but said that
he would abstain from voting.
The decision was adopted by 30 votes in favour, none against, with the
Czechoslovak delegate abstaining.
4. Status of Protocols and Schedules (GATT/CP.6/20/Rev. 1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uls-G Rv
Tho CHAIRMN stated that thc Secretariat's revised paper petting forth
the present status of the Protocols and Schedules was submitted for the
information of the Contracting Parties.
Since thore were no comments the document was nL'
5. Ro of Woag Pet 5 on the uge ATT.6L5)
Mr. ADAR (): -s hdrmthe W1rking arty stated that the
Working Party 'ddealt expeditiously with the questions referred to it and
had given approval. to the proposals submitted by the Secretariat The
questions on which the Contracting Parties would have to take specific
decisions conceasned contributions by governments which had cosed to be
contracting parties and contributions by certain acceding governments to the
expenses of tariff conferences. In the first category were China, Lebanon
and Syria. The Working Party considerer2that the full amounts of contri-
butions payable by those countries wero still due, and recommended that the
Fzocutivo Socretary be instructed to take the matter up with these govern-
ments, As to the contribution of Germany to the expenses of the Torquay
Confer5nce, the Workin5 Party agreed to limit that contribution to $3,000
on the understanding that the German Govermont would waive any claim on
anyeenappropriated eerplus of the 1950 budget; this proviso had boon
accepted by the German delegation. GATT/CP.6/SR. 27
Page 5
Commenting upon the sub-items of the 1952 budget, Mr, Adarkar said that
for meetings in 1952, only one regular session of the Contracting Parties had
been budgeted for, while provision for intersessional meetings had been slightly
increased. As regards the appropriation for wages and salaries the Working
Party considered that the budget proposal submitted had the necessary flexibility
to enable the Executive Secretary to give effect to the recommendation of
Working Party 3 regarding the appointment of a third high-ranking officer. The
total contributions for 1952 would be slightly less than in 1951 and were based
on the assumption that Korea, the Philippines and Uruguay, would contribute as
contracting parties in 1952,
On the question of the Working Capital Fund., Mr. Adarkar pointed out that
the proposal relating to the disposal of the surplus that might accrue in 1951
and the use of the cash reserve adequately met the eas requirements of the
Secretariat and that it was therefore not necessary to take a decision on the
establishment of a Working Capital Fund at this stages the provisions now made
would make it possible to set up such a Fund in the future if the Contracting
Parties so wished,
Part I,.regarding the Financial Report, was adopted
Mr. TAUTBER (Czechoslovakia) commenting on Part II, "Estimates of Expenditure
for 1952", thought that the creation of an additional D2 post was not justified,
for the reasons he had advanced in the Working Party. If' however, the
Contracting Parties decided to authorize the creation of such a post, he would
request the Executive Secretary to consider the. appointment of a candidate from
an under-developed country.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) pointed out that paragraph 9 did not in fact recommend
the creation of a new post but only stated that, if created, enoughh funds would
be available.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said that, as he had voted a, ainst the recom-
mendation of Working Party 3, he would vote against paragraph 9 of the Report of
Working Party 5, For the rest of the report he would give hi's approvals
Part II of the Report, "Estimates of Expenditure for 1952", was
unanimously, except for the reservation of the Czechoslovak delegate on
paragraph 9,
Parts III and IVY on the "'Income.Budget for 1952" and the "1951 surplus"
respectively, were adopted"
The Resolution on the expenditure of the Contracting Parties in 1952 and
the ways and means to meet such expenditure (page 4 of GATT/.CP.6/55) was
adopted. GATT/CP. 6/SR. 27
Page 6
6. Proposal the French-Delegation for an Intersessional Working Party
for the
for the examination of a Treatu Instituting a European Coal and
Steel Pool (GATT/CP.6/56)
M. PHILIP (France) explained that the Treaty instituting a European
Coal and Steel Pool was expected to be ratified early in 1952, and he
proposed that the Contracting Parties establish a special working party to
examine the relationship of the Pool to the provisions of the General
Agreement.
The CHAIRMAN noted that there was no objection to putting this natter
on the Agenda.
M. PHILIP (France) then explained further that, after ratification of
the Treaty, the Pool would be put into operation as soon as possible. It
was clear that some negotiations with countries.not members of the Pool
would be necessary. especially with regard to the provisions of the General
Agreement. As little time as possible should be lost in arriving at
satisfactory arrangements between the Pool and the General Agreerment on
Tariffs and Trade.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) did not intend to explain again his
Governments well-known attitude towards the Schuman Plan. He saw no
reason to set up a Working Party at this stage as the proposed treaty was
not yet ratified nor the organisation established.
M. PHILIP (Frahce) recalled that the subject had been discussed in
Torquay. The mornent had now come to establish a Working Party of the
Contracting Parties to consider this matter as the coal and steal Pool was
about to Come into being an event which would create many questions in
relation to the General Agreement.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that the Schuman Plan would affect many
countries other than those which signed the treaty. The preparatory work
which a Working Party could do would be extremely useful in clarifying the
relation between it and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) considered that if the Contracting Parties
decided to set up a Working Party, they would thereby take a position in
favour of the political action of certain contracting parties and this
would, in his opinion, place the Contracting Parties in an embarrassing
position.
M. SUETENS (Belgium) pointed out that the Contracting Parties were not
asked to express an opinion on the Schuman Plan. One of the implications
of the Plan however, would be to create a common market between several
countries, which would necessitate lowering customs barriers and abolishing
quantitative restrictions. The Contracting Parties must authorise the
countries concerned to take such action. The terns of reference of the
Working Party, if sot up, should bring this out clearly. GATT/CP. 6/SR. 27
Page 7
Mr, HAGEMANN (Germany) considered that the Schuman Plan was of great
interest to countries other than those participating in it, and he stressed
the need for the Contracting Parties to study the relationship between the
Plan and the General Agreement.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) maintained that even if the Contracting
Parties set up a Working Party to deal with the purely technical implications
of the Schuman Plan in relation to the General Agreement, such action would
nevertheless imply approval by the Contracting Parties of the Plan as a
whole, This involved a decision of a political character by the Contracting
Parties and he would therefore oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN noted that, with the exception of the Czechoslovak dele-
gation, the Contracting Parties approved the setting up of a Working Party.
He proposed the following terms of reference and membership for the Working
Party:
"To consider problems which may require action by the Contracting
Parties arising from the Treaty instituting a European Coal and
Steel Pool and to report as and when necessary to the Contracting
Parties."
Membership: Austria Italy
Belgium Luxemburg
Brazil Netherlands
Canada New Zealand
France Sweden
Germany United Kingdom
India United States
The Working Party should choose its own Chairman.
The proposal was adopted.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) assumed that all contracting parties would
be kept informed on progress made by the Working Party.
The CHAIRMAN said that this would, of course, happen, and if other
contracting parties wished to attend meetings of the Working Party, they
were naturally entitled to do so.
Mr. DHARM VIRA (India) and Mr. HASVIE (Pakistan) stated that they had
not yet received instructions from their Governments on the subject.
7. Appointment of the Commitee on Agenda and Intersessional Business
The CHAIRMAN said that, in the light of consultations with various dele-
gations, he would propose that the Membership of the Committee be the same
as that of Working Party 3, except that Norway would be replaced by Denmark.
He Jas aware however, that the Latin American delegations might wish to add
another member. GATT/CP. 6/SR.27
Page 8
Mr. PEAEE CISNEROS (Cuba) proposed the inclusion of Brazil,
Mr. LEDDY (United States) supported this-proposal,
The Committee, composed as follows, was approved.
Australia India
Brazil Italy
Canada Netherlands
Chile Pakistan
Cuba South Africa
Denmark United Kingdom
France United States
Germany
S. United States Restrictions on imports of Dairy Products (GATT/CP.6/51)
Mr. LEDDY (United States)Stated that, since the declaration made by Mr.
Thorp on September 21 regarding the proposed repeal of Section 104 of the
Defense Production Act, the United States Government had continued its efforts
to this end, Unfortunately, however, the closing weeks of Congress had been
taken up with so much important business that the bill to repeal Section 104
had not been dealt with. The Contracting Parties would recall that the Senate
Committee on Banking and Currency, which was responsible in the Senate for the
legislation of which Section 104 was a part, had recommended unanimously that
it be repealed. The next occasion for repeal would be the session of the
Congress beginning early in January 1952. His Government continued to give
very high priority to the repeal of Section 104 and it would continue to treat
this as a matter of urgency. It was hoped that Congress would deal with the
question early in its next session. In the circumstances, he hoped that
interested contracting parties would accord a reasonable time to the United
States Government to see whether its hopes in this matter would be fulfilled.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) said he was prepared, in vi,.w of the circumstances
explained by the United States delegate, to accept the proposed resolution of
the Contracting Parties.
The resolution counselling the contracting parties affected to afford the
United States a reasonable period of time to rectify the situation through
repeal and requestlng the United States to report as early as possible and in
any event no later than the Seventh Session, was adopted the Czechoslovak
delegate abstaining.
9. Date and place of the next session
The CHAIRMAN said that the Seventh Session could be held in Geneva in May
or July but not in June of 1952. May had the advantage of enabling the
Contracting Parties to take action more quickly on some questions referred to
them during the present session but the month of July might be preferable for
the consultations under Article XIV. GATT/CP.6/SR.27
Page 9
Mr. LMCKIE (United Kingdom) felt that it was important to preserve the
customary period between sessions and that the time of a session should be
determined by the work rather than by the question of when space would be
available in Geneva. He suggested that thc Seventh Session should start
on 5 June and that the Agenda Committee should meet some days before.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) thought that the Seventh Session should be held at the
time Lost suitable for dealing with the consultations on balance of payments re-
strictions, He did not think it practicable to determine the exact date now,
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that a decision on the date and site must
be made no later than March 1 for administrative reasons, particularly if
the session were to be held outside Geneva.
After some further discussion it was agreed that the date of the next
session would be tentatively June 5 1952, subject to review by the Committee
on Agenda and Intersessional Business which , before 1 March, decide
both on the definite date and the site.
10. Closing Statememt by Chairman
The CHAIRMAN reviewed the work alone by the Sixth Session of' the
Contracting Parties.
The Contracting Parties had considered the question of the continuing
administration of the Agreement and had reviewed the operation of the
Agreement in the light of past experience. They had decided that it would
be promature, at this stage to take decisions of a permanent character or
to open up now the kind of discussion on the future of the Agreement which
would eventually have to take place in accordance with Article XXIX.
The Chairman referred to the work done on the resolutions of the
International Chamber of Commerce which seemed a profitable field for future
work by the Contracting Parties,
At this session also procedures had been agreed upon for tariff
negotiations either with countries which wore not yet contraction parties
or between contracting parties.
The problem of the disparities of European tariffs which had been raised
at Torquay had led here to an important proposal from the French delegation
for the automatic reduction of tariffs generally and on a world-wide basis.
In the field of quantitative restrictions a review had been carried out
of the restrictions maintained under the balance of payments provisions..
Finally, the Contracting Parties had had them a number of
complaints on action taken by individual contracting parties. In most of
these cases the contracting party concerned had given assurances of making
active efforts to remedy the situation.
The full text of the Chairman's remarks is to be found in Press Release
GATT/65.
The CHAIRMAN declared the close of the Sixth Session,
The meeting rose at 6.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | cs001pr5134 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting : Corrigenda | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 2, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 02/11/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.26/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cs001pr5134 | cs001pr5134_90270228.xml | GATT_140 | 117 | 809 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 6/SR.26/Corr. 1
2 November 1951
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Page 4
Delete the last paragraph under 3(i) and substitute:
" The recommendations of the Working Partyr on procedures for
report and consultations in 1952 were approved."
Add the following paragraph and heading between the 7th and 8th
lines, i.e. after Mr. Tauber's speech:
" The Working Party's recommendations on intersessional procedures
for dealing with matters arising under Articles XII to XIV were
' (iii) General Discussion on the Reports of Working Party 6." Z
Delete the paragraph beginning at the 4th line and substitute:
" The general discussion was concluded." |
GATT Library | ks471xy0615 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 26 October 1951, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 29, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.26 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ks471xy0615 | ks471xy0615_90270227.xml | GATT_140 | 3,284 | 21,944 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP .6/SR.26
TARIFFS AND TRADE 29 October 1951
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 26 October 1951, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr S. A. HASNIE (Pakistan)
Subjects discussed: 1. Memorandum by the Delegation of Czechoslovakia
concerning the Declaration of the Contracting
Parties on the Suspension of Obligations by the
United States and Czechoslovakia (Continued).
2. Belgian Import Restrictions.
3. Report of Working Party 6 on Balance-of-Payment
Restrictions (Continued).
admb gaielrto
I. Memorandumcbc the Delegation of Czedhosloclaraa concerning the Declaation
of-he Contracsting Parties on tte Supeysion of Obliga ions b~ the United
kia tes ansd Czechnoslova (Discus.ion cot.nued) (GATT/C,6/5/Add,2 and 49)
Dr. van BL(NKENSTEIN (Netherlands) regretted that the point of order
raised by his delegation at the previous meeting had caused a prolonged
discussion. They would withdraw their objection to the inclusion of this
item on the agenda It it were understood that no discussion would be entered
into on the memorandum of the Czechoslovak delegation.
Mr; LEDDY (United States) said that in the light of the statement by the
Netherlands representative his delegation would also withdraw its objection
to the inclusion o. t.is item on the agendas
It was araeed that the item proposed by Czechoslovakia be included in the
agenda,
MI' Taublr lCzechoslovakia), reca1ling the discussion at the fourteenth
meeting A Wich he.had reeuested them his Govornment be freed under Article
XXIII to withdraw the concession initially negotiated with the United States,
stated that his Government had now decided that as from November 1, 1951 it
would charge the highest rate of customs duty on goods of United States origin
imported into Czechoslovakia in respect of which Czechoslovakia had granted
the United States direct rthuctions following ..e .egotiations of 1947, GATT/CP.6/SR.26
Page 2
In declaring this suspension of its concessions the Czechoslovak
Government would stress that it considered the decision taken by
the Contracting Parties on September 27, for the suspension of
obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia, as illegal
and therefore null and void. Thé Czechoslovak Government had in
no instance violated either the letter or spirit of the General
Agreement. When it signed the Agreement in 1948, it thought it
had taken action of fundamental importance in its foreign policy
committing itself to the fullest international co-operation in
the economic field, This co-operation, in the view of the
Czechoslovak Government, required the observance of the principle
of nondiscrimination in international trade and non-interference
in the internal affair of other countries. The motives and
objectives of the United States had been made clear by the conduct
of its comercial policy which was not aimed at the promotion of
peaceful commercial relations or co-operation in general. Many of
its actions had been contrary to the obligations it had undertaken
under the Agreement, for example, the prohibition and restrictions
on imports of dairy product. Trade policy had been pursued with
the sole idea of furthering political aims, with the result of spoiling
amicable international relations.
Mr. Tauber, referring to the remarks made by various represen-
tatives at earlier meetings, in connection with the import restric-
tions on dairy products, recalled the position taken by the United
States delegation on the recent proposal of the Belgian Government
to take certain measures to deal with current financial problems.
It was regrettable that some representatives had associated themselves
with the United States, thus supporting the unjustifiable interference
in the internal affairs of another country. This fell short of the
high level of conduct expected of contracting parties and the measures
taken by the United States were undoubtedly a violation of the
provisions of the General Ageement. Mr. Tauber then stated that,
in pursuance of the true spirit of the Ageement, his Government
would not apply this increase in customs duties to its imports from
the territories of other contracting parties.
The CHAIRMAN thought it would not be proper to re-open the dis-
cussion on the Declaration which had been approved earlier in the
Session; the Contracting Parties shoud merely take note of the
intention of Czechoslovakia to apply maximum rates of duty to the
products of the United States as from November 1, 1951. GATT/CP.6/SR.26
Page 3
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) agreed, but wished it to be recorded that
the Contracting Parties considered the action by Czechoslovakia to be covered
by the provisions of Article XXIII of the Agreement. The Declaration taken
on September 27 was based on no particular provision of the Agreement, whereas
the Czechoslovak action was based on Article XXIII and should be so considered.
M. LECUYER (France) agreed with the Chairman that the discussion should
not be re-opened. Since no new decision was called for, the Contracting
Parties, having listened to the statement by the Czechoslovak representative,
should consider the matter closed and proceed to the next item on the agenda.
The CHAIRMAN re-affirmed his view that, by their Declaration of September
27, the Contracting Parties had agreed that the Government of Czechoslovakia
would be free to suspend their obligations under the General Agreement
with respect to the United States.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) supported the Chairman's view.
2. Quantitative Import Restrictions applied by Belgium
The CHAIRMAN referred to the discussion which had taken place at the
twentieth meeting on 22 October, and stated that he wished to summarise the
salient points as they had developed and to suggest to the Contracting Parties,
and in particular to those contracting parties most directly concerned, a way
of dealing with this problem at this session. The Belgian representative
had explained that the restrictions imposed were part of a programme designed
to prevent the threat of inflation by limiting the extension of Belgian-
Luxemburg credits to foreign countries and by reducing the surplus of the
two countries in the European Payments Union. He had indicated that Belgium-
Luxemburg was not in balance-of-payment difficulties, there being no imminent
threat of a serious decline in monetary reserves. The Belgian Government
thought it could not be expected to justify these measures under Article
XII of the Agreement, and in their view they fell within the provisions of
Article XV: 9(b).
On the other hand, other delegations had called for consulations on
these restrictions under Article XII:4(a). The delegations of countries
adversely affected by these measures, though aware of the factors cited by
the Belgian representative, had indicated that they did not believe that
these factors or the reference to article XV in any way removed the need for
consultations under Article XII. They considered that these measures, al-
though exchange restrictions, were also trade restrictions subject to the
provisions of Article XII. The United States and the Canadian representatives
had stated that the trade of their countries had been damaged and that the
substance of this matter should be dealt with by the Contracting Parties.
However, it was understood that these delegations, in view of the Belgian state-
ment that the Economic Union was not in balance-of-payment difficulties, now
believed that consultations under Article XII:4(a) would serve no useful
purpose. At the sane time, they did not believe that more general con-
sultations would be helpful. GATT/CP.6/SR.26
Page 4.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that these developments allowed the Contracting
Parties to deal with this problem in the following way. Although Belgium
considered that it was acting within the terms of the Agreement, it was clearly
the opinion of the United States and Canadian delegations that Belgium had
departed from its provisions. Any government which held that view could
initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Agreement relating to
departures from its obligations such as Article XII:4(d) or Article XXIII.
He hoped, however, that governments would give the matter most careful
consideration while reserving all their rights to seek redress. The
Chairman concluded that the wisest course for the Contracting Parties
would be to take careful note of what had been said. These were not simple
matters; they were matters which posed serious problems for governments.
Bearing in mind that the Belgian representative had stated that the Economic
Union was not altering the fundamentals of its commercial policy, that Belgium
intended to abide by the rules of the General Agreement, and that these dollar
restrictions might be removed in the near future, he would recommend that the
Contracting Parties do not pursue the matter further at this session, and that the
record be allowed to stand as he had summarised it. In his opinion the
integrity of the Agreement would be preserved by this proposal, and no-one's
rights were adversely affected by his recommendations.
The summary by the Chairman and his recommendations were accepted.
3. Report of Working Party 6 on Balance-of-Payment Restrictions:
(i) Report on Procedures for the Third Annual Report on Discriminatory
GT C? . .
of Impoimort Restrions and for Consultations in M frch
Article XIV lXIV:1(g).(/CP.62 .52)
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia), aa ChPirman of WorkPng ?arty 6, drew attention
to tee rmocomendation that contracting parties should be requested to supply
up-to-diteo lnermation, lupe~emontary to that given in their reply to the
earlier questionnaire, on the discriminatory application of import restriction
and-that Sewe 3cretariat should prepare material to assist the Contracting
Parties hin teir preparatoon 6f the third annral ieport and inithe-r consultations
in 1952. Secondly, contracting parties taking action u1der Article XIV:l(c)
or Annex J should initiate consurltations by 15 Mach 1952, and these should
be listed in the Agenda for the Seventh Session.
Fr. PRAEDMKN (International Monetary Fund) confirmed that the pro-
cedures recommended by the Working Party would be acceptable to the Fund.
The recommendations of thrking Partyt.ty wepproved.dl
i) Report on (Proceduresfo ri terseessional Action on Matters Arisng o
s unIdtr XIV ArXIVC (ls (G/cP.652).
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia), as Chairman of Working Party 6, reported that
atuthe reqUest of the Chairman of the Contracting Parties the Working Party
ewd reviseedthe procedures adopted at the Third Session for dealing with
s qhuehstgg:.ieriieh axso between sessions under Articles XII to XIV. The
decosion 6f the Contracting Parties to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee on Agenda
and Intersessional Business had rendered unnecessary certain provisions of
the existing procedures, particularly the appointment of a select committee
dealing with matters arising under certain provisions, end th. disc.etion GATT/CP. 6/SR.26
Page 5
hitherto given to the Chairman of the Contracting Parties. The modifications
recommended were set forth at the end of the report; these involved, among other
things, a new procedure for the appointment of intersessional working parties.
Mr. TAUBER (Czechoslovakia) said that to be consistent with his earlier
opposition to the proposal regarding an Intersessional Committee he would not
support these new procedures insofar as they required the setting up of such
a committee.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) commended the Secretariat on the draft report
on import restrictions which it had prepared and which, in his opinion, was
outstanding for its sincerity and impartiality, and he paid tribute to the
Chairman of the Working Party for his able conduct of its deliberations and
his handling of the most difficult task of the session. The Cuban delegation,
however, believed that the Forking Party, because of the position taken by
the majority of its members, had failed in its mission. The essence of
Article XII:4 (b), requiring a review of all existing restrictions had been
overlooked and the forking Party had failed even to carry out a free and
frank discussion of these restrictions on the basis of available information.
The limited achievement of the Working Party was all the more regrettable
since the representative of the Fund had expressed the view that, difficulties
and uncertainties notwithstanding, it would be possible for sone contracting
parties to remove some of their restrictions. A fuller discussion of indi-
vidual restrictive systems might have led to very practical results in con-
nection with the general objectives of relaxing and removing restrictions.
The Cuban delegation was deeply concerned about the general policy on
import restrictions that had been discernible at this session, and in the
light of this disappointing experience, it was also concerned about the
prospects for the consultations to be held in 1952 and about the future of
the General Agreement itself. His Government was prepared to comply fully
with its obligation of accepting restrictions which can be justified on
balance-of-payment grounds and could be relied upon to show a spirit of
cooperation in its attitude towards the countries suffering financial diffi-
culties. But at the same time it would expect these countries to fulfill
their obligations by removing or relaxing their restrictions whenever possible.
In the coming consultations there should be a frank disclosure of information
and ample opportunity for discussion of restrictive systems. And whenever new
restrictions were applied the contracting party concerned should respect the
provisions of the Agreement and accept without question its obligation to
consult with the Contracting Parties. If the majority of the contracting
parties felt it impossible fully to comply with the provisions of the Agree-
ment regarding restrictions, the Cuban Government believed that that fact
should be honestly recognized and those provisions should be revised.
Mr. DONOSO (Chile) stated that the import control in force when Chile
acceded to the General Agreement was much more restrictive than that applied
at the present time; the present system of restrictions provided for the
unrestricted importation of goods representing nearly 30% of foreign
expenditure in 1951, and under it many goods could be imported on the sole
condition that the required foreign currency was available. This demonstrated
the importance which his Government attached to the objectives of the General
Agreement and showed that his Government had done the utmost which was
practicable in the present circumstances of international financial relations.
Although Chilets dollar receipts had been increased recently through the
augmented export of copper, the net deficit in dollars continued because GATT/CP.6/SR .26
Page 6
certain European governments insisted upon payments being made in dollars for
certain of their exports previously purchaseable with soft currencies.
On account of the need to import goods indispensable to the economic
development of the country the problem had become more and more serious,
the only possible solution being the continued application of quantitative
restrictions. Up to the present international financial assistance rendered
to under-developed countries had not been on a scale by any measure com-
parable to that which had been given to industrialized countries. The economic
development of underdeveloped countries was a long process since the
modernisation of agriculture, the establishment of industries the raising
of production and the diversification of an economy all required many years.
It was therefore unreasonable to expect undeer-developed countries to arrive
at equilibrium in their international payments in the foreseeable future by
raising the level of their exports; the only way of achieving this would be
through an effective and permanent international co-operation in the financial
fields.The problems was not the same for countries already industrialized such
as those in Western Europe. These countries, having since the war succeeded
in the reconstruction of their economies and having reached levels of employ-
ment and production higher than in pre-war days, could be expected further
to increase their productivity in the near future. It should not be impossible
for them to dispense with their import restrictions and to observe the
general objective of non-discrimination embodied in the Agreement; such
organizations as the European Payments Union which were necessary for their
economic progress should above all not be made instruments of discrimination
against other countries.
In conclusion Mr. Donoso reaffirmed his view that it was impossible to
achieve free and stable world trade if serious consideration were not given
to the economic development of under-developed countries; this was the
fundamental prerequisite for the re-establishment of international trade
without restrictions and without discrimination.
Mr. BONHOMME (Haiti) associated himself with the representatives of Cuba
and Chile and paid tribute to the Chairman of the Working Party. He was
concerned about the general attitude of the Contracting Parties in regard to
quantitative restrictions. If it were recognised, as it should be, that
a serious divergence existed between the provisions of the Agreement and
the realities of the world situation, the Agreement should be so modified
and made to be in conformity with facts, rather than that the Contracting
Parties should, in considering matters of grave importance, ignore certain
of its provisions. GATT/CP .6/SR.26
Page 7
Mr. BATALHA LIMA (Brazil) expressed his satisfaction with the draft report
prepared by the Secretariat and stressed the significant economic difference
between the under-developed and industrialized countries, which must be taken
into account in examining their position with respect to Article XII of the
General Agreement and Article XIV of the Fund Agreement. The difference
between an under-developed and a developed country might be likened to two
machines, one of which was in full operation, but the other still in the
stage of being built. Restrictions applied by under-developed countries were
often absolutely necessary because their continuing or permanent import
requirements constituted unavoidable commitments on the foreign account,
Industrialized countries, on the contrary, often applied balance-of-payment
restrictions not as an instrument of financial defence but simply in order to
strengthen their economic position. These were nevertheless applied under the
provisions of Article XII of the General Agreement and Article XIV of the
Fund Agreements although some contracting parties might wish to apply restrictions
without reference to any provisions of either Agreement. The Contracting Parties
as well as the Fund would do well to give due consideration to these remarks.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) said he did not share the disappointment expressed
by the representative of Cuba and the United Kingdom for he did not believe
that in the circumstances the Working Party could have achieved more. Article
XII:4 (b) provided for a review of restrictions, and not for consultations
such as the Cuban representative would wish to see carried out. It was open
to a contracting party wishing to initiate consultations to resort to Article
XII:4 (d). The Working Party had indeed acknowledged that quantitative
restrictions were being applied, but it had also noted that very few countries
had not taken some steps to relax or eliminate restrictions. Furthermore, it
was not the task of the Working Party to discuss the cause or justification of
particular restrictions. If a contracting party felt a real grievance it could
either propose that the provisions of the Agreement for review of
restrictions should be modified so as to require consultations to be instituted
in its places or alternatively, take action under Article XII.4 (d). And, if
quantitative restrictions considered as an obstacle to international trade,
were to be made the object of a general examination, it would be appropriate
that all such obstacles, including prohibitive tariffs, should be given
similar treatment.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) felt that the important and constrictive statements
of the representatives of Brazil, Chile and Cuba should be given attention by
the Contracting Parties. He suggested that delegations should bring these
views to the notice of their governments.
Mr. VARGAS GOMEZ (Cuba) said that he had merely wished to make clear the
views of his Government on the general questions of quantitative restrictions,
and would therefore not enter into a discussion of the questions raised by the
representative of India.
Mr. VILLALON (Dominican republic) supported the views expressed by the
representatives of Brazil, Chile and Cuba regarding import restrictions in
general and regretted that restrictions were still being so prevalently GATT/CP.6/SR .26
Page 8
applied to the detriment of international trade. He hoped that by the time
the consultations took place in 1952 there would have been a substantial
reduction in the instances of restrictive measures.
The recommendations of Working Party 6 on procedures for report and
consultations in 1952, were approved.
The meeting rose at 1.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | yz422ct1342 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Third Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, January 5, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/01/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.23/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yz422ct1342 | yz422ct1342_90270154.xml | GATT_140 | 52 | 333 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR.23/Corr. 1
5 January 1951
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-THIRD MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 2 - last paragraph
In the underscored portion of the text, insert the words
" a part of" before " item 1526(a) ". |
GATT Library | fp194jn9156 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Third Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Wednesday, 24 October, 1951, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 24, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 24/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/SR.23 and GATT/CP.6/SR.20-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fp194jn9156 | fp194jn9156_90270224.xml | GATT_140 | 1,374 | 8,844 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.6/SR.23 24 October 1951
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-THIRD MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Wednesday, 24 October, 1951, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Johan MELANDER (Norway)
Subjects discussed: 1. Item 28 - Application of Haiti relating to
Schedule XX Withdrawals.
2. Report of Working Party 2 on Schedules.
3. Item 23 - Nicaragua-El Salvador Free-Trade Area.
1. Application of Haiti relating to Schedule XX Withdrawals --
The CHAIRMAN referred to the report by the delegations of Haiti
and the United States concerning the withdrawal of certain concessions
which stated that the Haitian application under Article XXIII was withdrawn
and that the two Governments would consult, after the close of the Sixth
Sessions to consider what further action might be taken to solve the
problem originally raised by the delegation of Haiti at Torquay.
The Report was adopted.
2. Report of Working Party 2 on Schedules (GATT/CP.6/40)
M. DONNE (France) reported that the Working Party had considered
various changes to the Schedules and had come to the conclusion that it was
preferable to draw up a single protocol of rectifications and modifications
to the Schedules. The protocol entitled First Protocol of Rectifications
and Modifications covered miscellaneous rectifications, the results of the
negotiations under Article XXVIII which were unfinished at Torquay, the
transposition of the Geneva and Annecy Schedules of the United Kingdom into
the Brussels Convention Nomenclature, and various modifications that had
been made to the schedules either by decision of the Contracting Parties or
by consultations in accordance with the procedures established by the
Contracting Parties and which had already entered into effect. It was hoped
that the protocol would be signed by all delegations before they left
Geneva.
The Working Party had also drawn up a protocol to incorporate into
the General Agreement the results of negotiations completed by the Union of
South Africa and the Federal Republic of Germany in August 1951. This GATT/CP. 6/SR.23
Page 2
protocol was based on the model protocol established by Working Party 4 on
Arrangements for Tariff Negotiations.
With regard to the preparation of the consolidated schedules,
M. Donne emphasised that the English and French texts should be handed to
the Secretariat before the close of the Session.
The First Protocol of Modifications and Rectifications and the
First Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement (South
Africa and Germany) were approved.
The CHAIRMAN explained that both the protocols would be open for
signature at the close of the Sixth Session and asked delegations who had
not yet deposited full powers to sign them to do so as soon as possible.
Mr. DHARMA VIRA (India) hoped to have the necessary authority
before the close of the session or, if not, expected to be able to sign
shortly thereafter.
The CHAIRMAN referred to the recommendation that the Protocol of
Rectifications and Modifications be printed.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, in reply to a question by Mr. CISNEROS
(Cuba), said that the protocol would be printed in the form in which it
was signed and that delegations had therefore the opportunity to make minor
changes to tho text (which would be distributed) before signature.
This recommendation was approved.
Mr. PRESS (New Zealand) inquired whether the Union of South Africa
and Germany intended to sign the First Protocol of Supplementary Concessions
at tho close of the Session.
Dr. BOTHA (Union of South Africa) explained that he had powers to
sign the Protocol of Modifications and Rectifications only, as his Government
had expected that the results of the negotiations with Germany would be
incorporated therein. There were in any case certain legislative and
administrative difficulties which made it difficult for South Africa to sign
the protocol at the present time. Referring to the negotiations with Germany
he said they had been carried out in the confident expectation that the
Contracting Parties would find some procedure for incorporating the results
into the Agreement and he was gratified that the results of the negotiations
between South Africa and Germany were being incorporated into the Agreement
in accordance with the procedures worked out at this session.
Mr. HAGEMANN (Germany) associated himself with the remarks of the
delegate of South Africa. . ; .
theapproved.f the Working Party was rgXW. GATT/CP.6/SR. 23
Page 3
3. Nicaragua-El Salvador Free-Trade Area (GATT/CP.6/24 and Add. 1)
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said that when this question had been
first discussed no representative of Nicaragua had been present, and it had
therefore been thought that the matter would have to be left over until the
next session. Since then, however, a delegate from Nicaragua had arrived
and the Secretariat had discussed the Free-Trade Treaty with him and with
the observer from El Salvddor. The Addendum to GATT/CP.6/24 embodied
additional information and a draft decision which might serve the purposes
of the Contracting Parties, should they wish to approve the free-trade area
arrangements under paragraph 10 of Article XXIV.
Mr. PORTOCARRERO (Nicaragua). thanked the Contracting Parties for
the opportunity given to him to present the Treaty between El Salvador and
Nicaragua for review. He emphasised that his Government had always in mind
its obligations under the General Agreement and hence great care had been
taken to draft the Treaty in such a way as to further the objectives of
the Agreement. Referring to special problems encountered in arranging a
Treaty, he mentioned particularly the wide difference in tariffs in the two
nations and the peculiar exchange difficulties. He referred also to the
reservations in Articles III and IV of the Treaty as being essential to meet
unforeseen and abnormal trade developments.
Mr. Portocarrero added that there were no quantitative restrictions
in force at present but his Government would invoke the power reserved in this
connection by the end of 1951 in respect of four out of the twenty-nine
items for which such power had been reserved. These items related to cotton
textile goods only. He said that he had been authorized by his Government
to say that any action taken in accordance with Articles III and IV of the
Treaty would be taken in a manner consistent with the fundamental objective
of the Treaty and of Article XXIV of the General Agreement. He expressed
the willingness of his Government, if the Contracting Parties so desired, to
submit reports on any action taken under these Articles or submit such
additional information as might be useful to the Contracting Parties to
enable them to examine them in the light of the provisions of the General
Agreement. In conclusion, Mr. Portocarrero said that in Nicaragua, raw
material resources and products of agriculture and livestock predominated,
while El Salvador was more developed industrially. In the past, trade
between the two countries had been negligible owing to customs barriers
and other restrictions. His government believed that the Treaty would
make possible a great increase in the exchange of goods and indirectly
contribute to the development of the economic resources of the two countries.
Dr. AMY, Observer of El Salvador, expressed his pleasure at the
opportunity given to him to explain the point of view of the Government of
El Salvador in regard to the Treaty with Nicaragua. In his opinion the
Treaty was generous and liberal and conformed to the spirit of the Havana
Charter and the Charter of the United Nations. Although El Salvador was
not a party to the General Agreement, his Government was anxious to submit
the Treaty for the support of the Contracting Parties. It was in accordance
with the provisions of Article XXIV, paragraph 5 of the General Agreement.
If the text of the Treaty was examined it would appear that none of the GATT/CP. 6/SR. 23
Page 4
provisions contravened any of the provisions of the General Agreement. In
his note, dated 22 October, the Executive Secretary had given a very good
analytical and critical study of the Treaty. He referred to the agreements
contemplated under Article 16, paragraph 2(e) of the Havana Charter,
especially to the reference to El Salvador and Nicaragua in the Annex. He
emphasized that the Government of El Salvador attached great importance to
the approval of this Treaty by the Contracting Parties.
The meeting adjourned at 4.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | nr827nh5029 | Suspension of obligations of United States with respect to Czechoslovakia : Communication the United States | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 1, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/10/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/126 and GATT/CP/126 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nr827nh5029 | nr827nh5029_90310087.xml | GATT_140 | 229 | 1,643 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP/126
ON TARIFFS AND LFS TARIFS DOUANIERS 1 October 1951
BILINGUAL
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SUSPENSION OF OBLIGATIONS OF UNITED STATES
WITH RESPECT TO CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Communication the United States
The following letter, dated September 29, 1951 has been received by the Executive
Secretary from the Chairman of the Unites States Delegation to the Sixth Session:
"This is to inform you that the Government of the United States invokes its
right under the second paragraph of the operative part of the declaration by
the Contracting Parties of September 27, 1951, and hereby suspends, effective
immediately and until further notice, the obligations of the United States
with respect to Czechoslovakia under the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade."
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
DE LA TCHECOSLOVAQUIE
Communication des Etats-Unis
Le President de la delegation des Etats-Unis a la Sixieme Session a adresse au
Secretaire executif la lettre suivante, dates du 29 septembre 1951:
"J'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaitre par la presente communication que le
gouvernement des Etats-Unis invoque le droit qu'il detient en vertu du deuxieme
paragraphe du dispositif de Ia Declaration des Parties Contractantes en date du
27 septembre 1951, et suspend, avec effet immediat, jusqu'a nouvel avis, les
obligations qui incombaient aux Etats-Unis a l'egard de la Tchecoslovaquie aux
tomes de I 'Accord general sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerce". |
GATT Library | sq946kn9815 | Tariff negotiations arrangements under the General Agreement : Statement by the United States Government | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 16, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 16/07/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/2 and GATT/CP.6/1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sq946kn9815 | sq946kn9815_90070304.xml | GATT_140 | 1,177 | 7,767 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LlMITED C
A I N Q GATT/CP.6/2
TARIFFS AND TRAC . 16 July 1951
. ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS £U,11 7i.;G7 X (2t RALAGREEM
Statert by the United States Government
1. The Governitutf the United States wishes to suggest for the considera-
tion of the Contracting Frties the development of supplementary arrangements
to enable the conduct of tariff negotiations under the General Agreement even
in the absence of a general tariff conference of the Geneva-Annecy-Torquay
type.
2. Hitherto tariff negotiations lder the GWT have been conducted at
specially convacezdconferences where the contracting parties and the heding
countries gather together toExhange concessions and arrive at a mutually
acceptable agreement. Srstantial progress has been made through this means
in reducing tariffs and other barriers to world trade.
3. It would seem desirable for a umber of reasons to supplement this
arrangement with some additional nchanisz to enable the process of trade
barrier reduction to proceed effectively and without delay. For one thing,
another general round of taiff negotiations such as that recently concluded
at Torquay is not likely to take place f6 ',-time. In the meantime there
undoubtedly are countries outside the GATT which may wish to negotiate for
accession to the General Agreement and with which the present contracting
parties might desire to undertake tariff negotiations. Some arrangement to
enable such negotiations to take place without having to wait until the next
general tariff conference would appear desirable.
4. In the case of smal courx'i seeking to accede to the GATT,. mreover,
a generual conf erene uf the Gefiov'. cy-rq,.n.ayeseems unnecessarily
cumbersome for th6purpose in.mnd. Such countries may have a basis for
negotiations only with a few of the contracting parties and thus would not
be negotiating with the bulk of contracting parties in any event even if a
general conference were called. It should be possible to develop some simpler
arrangement to meet th.e circumstances of such countries
5. Finally, some of the countries already party to the GATT may desire to
undertakemong additional tariff negotiations athemselves prior to the next
general conference,*ontracting parties which have as yet not negotiated
with eachother eUner the GA.T or which may havs ndertaken but failed to con-
eude negotiations may find it advantageous to attempt further negotiations
without the necessity of waiting for another general conference to take place. GATT/CP.6/2
Page 2
6. It would, of course, be possible for individual contracting parties
to undertake bilateral negotiations outside the GATT framework both with non-
GATT and GATT countries. The advantages of keeping tariff negotiations
within the multilateral context of the General Agreement is so great, however,
that it would be desirable to keep such negotiations within this framework
if it is at all possible to do so.
7. A fairly simple solution to this problem seems available. It may
more easily be understood if the present procedure for tariff negotiations
under the GATT is briefly summarized. As noted above, tariff negotiations
thus far held under the GATT have involved the convening together in one
place of all the countries concerned for the purpose of undertaking such
negotiations. At such conferences countries which are the principal suppliers
of particular products to each other pair off to negotiate for concessions
on those products. When these essentially bilateral negotiations are
completed, the resulting concessions would be lumped together and extended
to each of the contracting parties in its own right. In determining whether
a mutually advantageous exchange of concessions had occurred and whether it
was therefore worth concluding an agreement, each country took into account
not only the concessions which it obtained as a result of its own bilateral
negotiations but those which it got by virtue of the concessions exchanged
by other countries.
8. There appears to be no reason why precisely the same process could not
be gone through without all the contracting parties and acceding countries
physically gathering together in one general conference to do the negotiating.
If there were a country, say Ruritania, wishing to accede to the GATT without
waiting for the next general round of negotiations which might be some
years away, it would appear to be feasible and unobjectionable in principle
for such a country to negotiate bilaterally with each of the contracting
parties which wished to negotiate with it, these negotiations taking place
(a) at the respective capital of the contracting party between the government
of the contracting party and the Ruritanian mission already in that capital
or sent there specially for the purpose, or (b) at the capital of Ruritania
between the Ruritanian government and each of the missions of the contracting
parties already in that country or sent there for the purpose, or (c) at
some other common convenient place, say the site of the GATT headquarters,
where only the countries directly involved in the tariff negotiations might
assemble. These last two possibilities tend to approach the concept of
the general tariff conference as hitherto conducted under the GATT but
differ from it in that all the contracting parties would not convene but
only those directly participating in the negotiations. Which of these three
possibilities would be followed could be decided in each individual case
in accordance with the convenience of the participants. Once the various
bilateral pairs of negotiations between Ruritania and each of the contrac-
ting parties undertaking negotiations had been completed, the results of
the negotiations could be laid before the contracting parties at one of their
regular sessions and a protocol drawn up which, upon approval by two-thirds
of the contracting parties, would provide for the accession of Ruritania to
the GATT in accordance with the terms provided in the protocol. GATT/CP.6/2
Page 3
9. Essentially the same arrangement could be followed with respect to
negotiations for further tariff reductions among countries already party
to the GATT. These countries, say the United States and another con-
tracting party, could convene in either of their respective capitals or
perhaps some other mutually acceptable locale and seek to agree on a mutually
satisfactory exchange of concessions. The results of the negotiations
would be embodied in a protocol which would integrate the concessions con-
cluded into the GATT, each party to the GATT then getting these concessions
in its own right. In such a case there would, of courses be no necessity
for the two-thirds vote involved in a country's accession to the GATT but
probably there should be some sort of review and approval of the protocol
to make sure that its terms are not inconsistent with the GATT.
10. This broadly, is the proposal. To implement the arrangement effective-
ly, some additional matters, which appear to be essentially questions of
detail rather than principle, will undoubtedly require further study by
the contracting parties.
11. The United States is placing this question on the agenda of the Sixth
Session. It is hoped that this advance notice of the proposal will give
governments adequate opportunity to consider the proposal and that agree-
ment upon some such arrangement may be reached at the Sixth Session. |
GATT Library | dh867mk0915 | Tariff Negotiations between the Union of South Africa and Germany | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 14, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/22 and GATT/CP.6/20-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dh867mk0915 | dh867mk0915_90070355.xml | GATT_140 | 209 | 1,544 | RESTRICTEDERAL AGREEMENT RESTRICTED
' LI\KEES ; LIMITED C
ON TARIFFS AND GATT/CP.6/22
14 September 1951
TRADE I ORIGINAL :ENGLSH
CONTRACTNG PARTIES
sixth Session
Tariff Negotiations between the Union of South Africa
and Germa
The Governments of the Union of South Africa and Gerany have reported that
bilateral tariff negotiations took place in August 1951 in accordance with the
principles and procedures of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and,
as a result thereof , they have agreed to accord to each other certain tariff
concessions, They have requested that arrangements be made at the Sixth Session
of the Contracting Parties for the results of these negotiations to be incor-
porated in their schedules to the General Agreement.
,One copy of the note sbJtted by the, wo Governments; ttaching the lists
of concessions, is being dbrbuted as a secret annex to this document to each
contracting party and acceding government.
Th connucation from South Africa was received too late for inclusion
in the Provisional Agenda, If this item is taken up at the Session the Contrac-
ting Parties may wish to consider whether the changes resulting from these
negotiatiScoens should be formally incorporated into the hdules by means of a
special protocol of modifications or by some other procedure. |
GATT Library | ds305cg5811 | Termination of obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia under the Agreement : Addendum. Statement by Czechoslovakia | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 11, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/09/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/5/Add.1 and GATT/CP.6/1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ds305cg5811 | ds305cg5811_90070310.xml | GATT_140 | 921 | 6,282 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP.6/5/Add.1
TARIFFS AND TRADE . 11 September 1951
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH/FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
Termination of Obligations between the United States and
Czechoslovakia under the Agreement
Added
Statement by Czechoslovakia
The following statement has been received from the Government of Czechoslovakia:
"The Czechoslovak Government has received from the Secretariat of the
Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the document
GATT/CP.6/5 of August 10, 1951.
"The document contains a statement according to which the Government of
the United States of America has determined to withdraw from Czechoslovakia the
benefits of trade-agreement tariff concessions, arising out of the General
Agreement on tariffs and Trade. The United States further proposes that at the
Sixth Session of the Contracting Parties all the obligations existing between
it and Czechoslovakia by virtue of the provisions of this Agreement be terminated.
"The Czechoslovak Government considers it necessary to draw the
attention of the Governments of the contracting parties to this document, for
it is firmly convinced that the proposal of the United States concerns a question
fundamental to international relations in general. It is not possible to
establish co-operation, peace and security among nations, if it is admitted
that the foundation of every co-operation among nations, i.e. the rules of
international law and international agreement may be unilaterally and flagrantly
violated in favour of the narrow interests of one of the participants. Respect
for accepted international obligations is an unconditional prerequisite to the
legal security of nations, to peaceful co-existence and international economic
development.
"The Czechoslovak Government therefore wishes primarily to draw the
attention of the Government of the contracting parties to this aspect of the
matter, for if the right of an economically influential state to exercise
pressure on another state, disagreeing with its policy and defending its so-
vereignty against foreign interference were once to be admitted, then none of
the contracting parties could be certain that its rights deriving from the
General Agreement will not be unilaterally violated, and that in this way
the objectives, the realization of which it pursued when it acceded to the
Agreement, will not be frustrated. GATT/CP .6/5/Add.1
Page 2
"Since March 1,1948, the United States has introduced the control
of exports, directed, in support of its foreign policy, against certain
countries, among others Czechoslovakia, and has continually intensified
this policy regardless of the principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, as well as of the United Nations Charter and in contradicition
to the principles in the name of which the United States proposed the
summoning of the International Conference on Trade and Employment and the
conclusion of a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
"Already in 1949, when the Czechoslovak Government objected to
the discrimination of the American export regime, the United States justified
its measures by reasons of the security of the state, although the peaceful
endeavour of the Czechoslovak Republic is generally known as well as the
fact that Czechoslovakia never and in no way threatened the United States.
"At present the United States has abandoned even this pretext and
.is advancing fictional 'political arguments', directed against the
Czechoslovak internal order. These arguments have nothing in common with
trade relations. They are of such a nature that they quite evidently
reveal the intention, to exercise pressure on Czechoslovakia in matters,
which are exclusively within her own jurisdiction.
"The proposal attempts, by distorting actual facts, to put the
indispensable measures of the Czechoslovak Government aimed at the
defence of the security of the states in such a light, as if they world
threaten or make the maintenance of normal, trade relations between the
Czechoslovak Republic and the United States impossible.
"All the contracting parties are well aware that Czechoslovakia
has always scrupulously observed the principles as well as all the provisions
of the Agreement, and even the Government of the United States of America
cannot cite a single example of the slightest violation of any of the
provisions of the Agreement by Czechoslovakia. It is therefore clear that
this is another attempt to achieve political ends by means of economic
pressure. In order to impose its further discriminatory measures against
one of the contracting parties to the General Agreement, the United States
intends to misuse the Agreement itself, by attempting to have its procedure
legalized at the Sixth Session of the Contracting Parties.
"The Government of the Czechoslovak Republic resolutely rejects
all attempts of the United States to exercise pressure on the Czechoslovak
Republic and to interfere with Czechoslovak internal affairs. The
Czechoslovak people directs its own affairs according to its own national
and state interests, and in its international relations it is guided by the
principle of respect of the international obligations it has taken upon
itself and by the principle of equality and non-interference. On the
other hand it insists that obligations must be upheld also by the other.
party and that they cannot be annulled by unilateral unlawful and forceful
acts.
- GATT/CP .6/5/Add .1
Page 3
"The Government of the Czechoslovak Republic is convinced that it
is also the desire of the Contracting Parties, that the General Agreement
should not be misused for the enforcement of political intentions by
interfering into the internal and foreign policy of member states, and so
undermining the conditions of international economic development, and
installing, instead of the co-operation to which the states have pledged
themselves, the principle of a forceful, unilateral imposition of a foreign
will, by means of the violation of agreements."
An b
Z |
GATT Library | vs099vc1586 | Termination of obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia under the Agreement : Statement by the United States | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 10, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/08/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/5 and GATT/CP.6/1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vs099vc1586 | vs099vc1586_90070309.xml | GATT_140 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | rt079kc6999 | Termination of obligations between the United States and Czechoslovakia under the Agreement : Statement by the United States | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 10, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/08/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP.6/5 and GATT/CP.6/1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rt079kc6999 | rt079kc6999_90070309.xml | GATT_140 | 553 | 3,837 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.6/5
10 August 1951
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Sixth Session
Termination of Obligations between the United States and
Czechoslovakia under the Agreement
Statement by the United States
The following statement has been received by the Executive Secretary in
a letter dated 2 August from the United States Government:
"The United States has determined to withdraw from Czechoslovakia
the benefits of trade-agreement tariff concessions.
"Since the United States and Czechoslovakia are contracting parties
to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the United States proposes
that at the Sixth Session all of the obligations existinb between it
and Czechoslovakia by virtue of the provisions of the Agreement should
be formally terminated. This statement is a brief explanation of the
factors involved in the United States decision.
"When in 1947 the contracting parties framed the obligations to
one another which are contained in the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, it was assumed that the political relations of the countries
concerned would be such that it would be in their mutual interests to
promote the movement of goods, money, and people between them. It is
now apparent that this assumption is no longer valid as between the
United States and Czechoslovakia. On the contrary, relations between
the United States and Czechoslovakia have been progressively impaired
by manifestations of Czechoslovak ill-will toward the United States,
The property of American nationals in Czechoslovakia has been confiscated,
without compensation or any. serious attempt on the part of Czechoslovakia
to settle this matter. American firms have been persecuted and harassed
to such a degree that it is virtually impossible for them to do business
with Czechoslovakia. Procurement of ordinary trade information
essential to the conduct of commercial enterprises has been declared a
Crime. The United States has been forced, on extremely short notice,
to reduce drastically the personnel of its Embassy in Prague. American
citizens have been imprisoned without justification. American charitable
and welfare organizations have been forced to discontinue their work. GATT/CP.6/9
Page 2.
"The impairment of economic relations has been aggravated by the
progressive integration of Czechoelovakia's economy into the Soviet
bloc. Czechoslovakia has openly declared its intention of administering
its economy solely in the interests of the bloc. It has granted a
special and guaranteed position in its economy to Soviet bloc corporations.
It has left no room for doubt that its commitments to the United States
are being subordinated or disregarded in the carrying out of its under-
takings as a part of the Soviet economic bloc.
"The United States, attaches considerable importance. to the maintenance
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as an instrument through
which nations which are in agreement on its broad objectives can work.
together in the economic sphere. The United States is of the view,
therefore that in the interests of maintaining the integrity of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in its application to trade among
nations with normal relations the existing situation between the United
States and Czechoslovakia should be frankly and unequivocally
recognized by the Contracting Parties, and the obligations between the
two countries embodied in the Agreement, already rendered a nullity by
political events, should be formally dissolved."
~~~~~~F .' .-. - I t
~~~~~~~~~~~~i %" - " I m '
0 - - W - - |
GATT Library | zm800rr4354 | Texte Codifie des Listes de Geneve, D'annecy et de Torquay : Addendum | July 4, 1951 | Parties Contractantes and Contracting Parties | 04/07/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/95/Add.2 and GATT/CP/95+Add.1-3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zm800rr4354 | zm800rr4354_90300359.xml | GATT_140 | 199 | 1,373 | ACCORD GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS
DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP/95/Add.2
4 juillet 1951
FRENCH
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
PARTIES CONTRACTANTESTrZS COTtACTAIMS
ET DE TOR&UY
rreteLa calendrier a par lea Partie aContractantee h la cinquiem
se.ssion (GeTT/CP5/4e) proscrit quw les projects de texts codifi4s de toutes
lea listes solent diotribues au plus tard le 20 juin pour permettre aux
fonctionnaires des autres gouvernements de lea examiner at d, lea vdrifierp-
et pour que des observations, rectifications eec., ecuissant Wtre changes
avant l'otivertuee de la' sixiime session en septembre.
D'matio lee inforrtions regues par le Secrctariat au 30 juin 1951 les
pros ects de texteecedifies one AtZ distribu6c aux parntes oontractafite par
les gouvannsrents suivoxts:
Ceylan - Liste V
France - Liste XI
Inde - Liste XII
Norvge- Liste XIV
Rt2d#s8i
du XVIcud - Li3t NJ
Danaark
rUp. Dominicaine
Finlande
Allemagne
Listse "i'
Liste -IhI
IIListse:~i
- Listed XXIV
- Lisat XXXIII
Unlon Sud-
AfricainXV Liste 0XIII
En ougre, res eouveinements desiges ci-aprbs oet informe le Secretariat
que leurs listes codifidee sont prOtes et seronteesiatribu&se& bref dglai:
;tats-Unis
Italie
nt d'adresse pour l'envoi de textes codifies: godit
Allemagne:
Dro F. Michhorn, BundesministerVum schaft,rtahatt,
Bonn 11.
-- ?? ??l ?? ?? |
GATT Library | st968ch7337 | Texte Codifie des Listes de Geneve, D'annecy et de Torquay : Addendum | Accord General sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce, August 13, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 13/08/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/95/Add.3 and GATT/CP/95+Add.1-3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/st968ch7337 | st968ch7337_90300360.xml | GATT_140 | 231 | 1,670 | ACCORD GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS
DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP/95/Add.3
13 aout 1951.
FRENCH
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
TEXTE CODIFIE DES LISTES DE GENEVE, D'ANNECY ET DE TORQUAY
Conformement aux avis recus par le Secretariat a la date du 13 aout 1951,
des projets de textes codifies ont ete distribugs aux parties contractantes
par les gouvernements designes ci-apres:
Allemagne
Australie
Benelux
Ceylan
Danemark
Republique Dominicaine
Finlande
France
Inde
Indonesie
Italie
Norvege
Nouvelle-Zelande
Pakistan
Rhodesie du Sud
Royaume-Uni
Suede
Tohecoslovaquie
Union Sud-Africaine.
La Rhodesie du Sud et l'Allemagne ont egalement fourni des traductions de
leurs lates.
En outre, le Seoretariat a ete informe que les listes codifiees du Bresil
et des Etats-Unis sont en preparation et seront pretes prochainement.
Il n'a pas ete recu des pays designes ci-apres des listes codifiees ni
de renseignements concernant la date a laquelle elles pourraient etre pretes:
Canada
Chili
Cuba
Grece
Haiti
Uruguay
Il est rappelew aux gouvernements qeo lse textes non authentiques de leurs
lsates codifedes devraiente8tre pefs avant la fin de la Sixedme Session. Le
Seertariat est tout dispse aL interveior aupebs du Bureau de Bruxelles pour
demandere4ventuellement son assistance en vue delha peeparation decaes textes.
lL est rappeededgalement aux gouveremense qu'il sera poute8tre ecoes-
saire danscaertains das de multigraphiercoertains stencils des lsites codifedes
et qu'il serait souhaitable, en pedvision de cetteedventualied, qeo leurs
ededgations apportent les stencilsah la ixieme Session. |
GATT Library | gt633tw3282 | The Discriminatory Application of Import Restrictions. Report and Consultations in 1952 (Article XIV:1 (g)) | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 4, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/12/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/132 and GATT/CP/132 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gt633tw3282 | gt633tw3282_90310109.xml | GATT_140 | 389 | 2,587 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
ACTION
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP/132
4 December 1951
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
The Discriminatory Application of Import Restrictions
Report and Consultations in 1952
(Article XIV:1 (g)) )
1. The Contracting Parties, at their Sixth Session, adopted procedures
(GATT/CP.6/52) for the preparation of their third report on the discriminatory
application of quantitative import restrictions and for the conduct, in
March 1952 or thereafter, of consultations with contracting parties pursuant
to paragraph l(g) of Article XIV. Those procedures require the contracting
parties concerned to take the following action;
Action required of:
Action to bc taken:
(a) Contracting parties taking
action under paragraph 1(b)
or 1(c) of Article XIV or
under Annex J.
(b) Contracting parties taking
action under paragraph 1 (c)
of Article XIV or under
Annex J.
To submit to the Executive Secretary not
later than 15 March1952 a statement des-
cribing any changes which havc taken place,
subsequent to the submission of their reply
to GATT/CP/89, in import control. regulations
or administrative practices which affect the
discriminatory application of the restric-
tions which they are applying under
Article XII.
To advise the Executive Secretary not later
than 15 March 1952 that it is initiating
consultations with the Contracting Parties
and to furnish a statement giving the
details of the measures involved together
with any information, in addition to that
contained in its statement referred to above,
which would assist the Contracting Parties
in carrying out the consultations.
2. Three copies of the statements requested in paragraphs l(a) .and 1(b)
should be sent by airmail, and 50 copies by surface post, to the Secretariat
in Geneva for distribution to other contracting parties.
3. In vicw of the duties laid upon the Executive Secretary to inform contracting
parties and the International Monetary Fund of the names of contracting parties
entering into consultations, it is essential that communications initiating
consultations should reach the Executive Secretary by the agreed date. And to
enable the Ad hoc Committee on Agenda and Intersessional Business, which will
meet at the end of February, to reach a decision on the date for the Seventh
Session, it would be appreciated if . contracting parties which intend to initiate
consultations in March would give advance notice to the executive Secretary as
early as possible and in any case not later than 25 February. |
GATT Library | gm385tj2894 | The Grant of Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment to Countries other than Contracting Parties : Note by the Executive Secretary | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 7, 1951 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/03/1951 | official documents | GATT/CP/100 and GATT/CP/100 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gm385tj2894 | gm385tj2894_90300371.xml | GATT_140 | 219 | 1,562 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON ACTION
TARIFFS AND TRADE 7 March 1951
ORIGINAL.- - ENGLISH_-
CONTRACTING PARTIES
The Grant of Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment to Countries
other than Contracting Parties
Note by the Executive Secretary
The treatment accorded by one contracting party to another under the
provisions of the General Agreement is extended in most cases, by virtue of
bilateral most-favoured-nation conventions, to a number of countries which
are not contracting parties. Thus the effect of the concessions accorded
under the General Agreement is clearly much wider than that provided by the
Agreement itself.
Information as to the full effect of the GATT concessions would be
valuable for record and research purposes. The information could be
assembled by the Secretariat, since the majority-of most-favoured-nation-con-
ventions have been published, but a great deal of research could be avoided
if contracting parties (and also those governments which expect to accede to
the Agreement following the Torquay negotiations) were to provide the basic
data and references. Accordingly, it would be appreciated if contracting
parties willing to do so would, at their convenience but if possible by
April 15, 1951, send to the Secretariat the names of the countries other than
contracting parties, to whom they grant most-favoured-nation treatment in
respect of customs duties and charges, together with the title, date and
duration of each relevant convention. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.