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 | jv560cf9353 | South African import restriction : Statement by the International Monetary Fund with reference to Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda for the Fifth Session (since deletead) | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 7, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/20 and GATT/CP.5/14-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jv560cf9353 | jv560cf9353_90330100.xml | GATT_141 | 263 | 1,810 | RESTRICTED LIMITED C
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.5/20
TARIFFS AND TRADE 7 November 1950
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Sessien
SOUTH AFRICAN IMPORT RESTRICTION
Statement by the International Monetary Fund with reference to Item 9
of the Provisional Agenda ofr the Fifth Session (since deletead)
The following communication, dated 4 November, has been received
from the International Monetary Fund :
"As a result of the proposed change in the South
African systems, the Fund believes that submission of a report
on the aspects of system which will soon no longer be in
effect would probably be of little interest and practical
value te the Contracting Parties.
"The changs in its restrictive system annouced by
South Africa appear to represent a welcome and substantial
relaxation of discrimination. While the new system is not to
go into effect until 1951, and the details of it are not
available, the proposed relaxations are intended to operate
so that:
(a) South African import would be thrown open to
world-wide competition up to its total current
external income of hard and soft currencies;
(b) discrimination would take place only to the
extent that capital inflow from soft currency
countries exceeded the capital inflow from
hard currency countries.
"However, judgement cannot be made respecting the
need for the discrimination which will continue in effect,
until the new system can be evaluated in the light of its
functioning under the conditions prevailing after it comes
into operation.
"As indicated at the Fourth Session of the Con-
tractiing Parties, the Fund is in active consultation with
South Africa with regard to its exchange restricfions." |
GATT Library | bh499mc0018 | South African import restrictions | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 7, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/08/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/78 and GATT/CP/78 + Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bh499mc0018 | bh499mc0018_90300291.xml | GATT_141 | 146 | 1,026 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/78
7August 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/ FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SOUTH AFRICAN IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
The following communication was received on 3 August 1950
from the Government of the Union of South Africa :
"It is today being announced in Union that restricted
import permit, will with immediate effect become valid for
imports from Belgian Monetary Area which includes Belgium,
Luxembourg, Belgian Congo, Ruanda Urundi."
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
RESTRICTIONS A. L'IMPORTATION DANS L'UNION
SUD-A.FRICAINE
Le Gouvernement de l'Union Sud-Africaine a adresse
au Secretariat la communication suivante en date du 3 aout 1950 :
"II a ete annonce aujourd'hui dans l'Union Sud-Africaine
que les permis d'importation limits deviendront immediatement
valables pour les importations en provenance de la zone
monetaire belge qui comprend la Belgique, le Luxembourg,
le Congo belge et le Ruanda-Urundi.""
- -
I
E C E?11----714, I r F-1: ?11 |
GATT Library | cs526zz3931 | South African import restrictions | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 7, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/08/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/78 and GATT/CP/78 + Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cs526zz3931 | cs526zz3931_90300293.xml | GATT_141 | 147 | 1,029 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTAD
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/78
7 August 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/
FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SOUTH AFRICAN IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
The following communication was received on 3 August 1950
from the Government of the Union of South Africa :
"It is today being announced in Union that restricted
import permits will with immediate effect become valid for
imports from Belgian Monetary Area which includes Belgium,
Luxembourg, Belgian Congo, Ruanda Urundi."
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
RESTRICTIONS A L'IMPORTATION DANS L'UNION
SUD-AFRICAINE
Le Gouvernement de l'Union Sud-Africaine a adresse
au Secretariat la communication suivante en date du 3 aout 1950:
"Il a ete annonce aujourd'hui dans l'Union Sud-Africaine
que les permis d'importation limits deviendront immediatement
valables pour les importations en provenance de la zone
monetaire belge qui comprend la Belgique, le Luxembourg,
le Congo belge et le Ruanda-Urundi."
-
i
Mason --
, In ? " E]11911- man - |
GATT Library | bn932sx7240 | Special exchange agreements : Addition of now Rule M-6 to the Rules and Regulations of the International Monetary Fund | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 20, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 20/06/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/52/Add.1 and GATT/CP/52+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bn932sx7240 | bn932sx7240_90300195.xml | GATT_141 | 323 | 2,059 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED D
GATT/CP/52/Add. 1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 20 June 1950
ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS
Addition of now Rule M-6 to the Rules and
Regulations of the International Monetary Fund
The following letter, dated 12 June 1950, has boon
received from the Acting Chairman of the Executive Board
and Acting Managing Director of the International Monetary
Fund :
"In reply to your letter of May 22, 1950, I
am pleased to sand you herewith a certified copy
of the decision of the Executive Board taken at its
meeting on June 7, 195O, adding Rule M-6 to the
Rules and Regulations of the International Monetary
Fund. This Rule was necessary in order to give
effect to the decision which was communicated to you
in the Fund's letter of March 3, 1950. *
"It will be appreciated if you will communicate the
text of the new Rule to the contracting parties."
. . . . . . .
'The following text of an additional Rule M-6 is
agreed :
M-6. The Fund deems that it would be prejudicial to
the interests of members and contrary to the purposes
of the Fund for a member to impose restrictions
on exchange transactions with those non-members
having entered into special exchange agreements under
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or
with persons in their territories, which the member
would not in similar circumstances be authorized to
impose on exchange transactions with other members
or persons in their territories. Therefore,
pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 , members should
not institute restrictions on exchange transactions
with such non-members, or persons in their territories,
unless the restrictions (a), if instituted on
transactions with other members, or persons in their
territories would be authorized under the Fund
Agreement, or (b) have been approved in advance
by the Fund. Requests for prior approval shall be
submitted in writing with a statement of reasons.'
* see GATT/CP/52 |
GATT Library | fr639xc7265 | Special exchange agreements : Letters addressed to the Chairman of the Contracting Parties by the Chairman of the Executive Board and Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 6, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/52 and GATT/CP/52+Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fr639xc7265 | fr639xc7265_90300194.xml | GATT_141 | 925 | 6,035 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP/52
TARIFFS AND TRADE 6 March 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS
Letters addressed to
the Chairman of the Contracting Parties
by the Chairman of the Executive Board
and Managing Director of the International
Monetary Fund.
Letter of 3 March 1950:-.
"I have the honor to inform you that the Fund has con-
sidered the problem raised by the New Zealand representatives
during the Annecy discussion of the special exchange
agreement that the provisions of Article XI, Section 2, of
the Fund Agreement presented an obstacle to adherence to a
special exchange agreement. The point was made at Annecy
that since the text of the special exchange agreement did not
contain a provision corresponding to Article XI, Section 2, of
the Fund Agreement, contracting parties which are members of
the Fund would be authorized to apply discriminatory exchange
restrictions against those contracting parties which sign a
special exchange agreement, unless the Fund determined that
such measures were prejudicial to the interest of its members
and contrary to the purposes of the Fund.
"The Fund has decided that it would be reasonable that
there be reciprocity with respect to that matter. Accordingly,
the Executive Board has determined pursuant to Article XI,
Section 2, of the Fund Agreement, that discriminatory restric-
tions to be imposed by contracting parties which are members
of the Fund on exchange transactions with those non-members
of the Fund which have signed a special exchange agreement
with the CONTRACTING PARTIES prejudice the interest of Fund
members and are contrary to the purposes of the Found;
therefore, they are subject to prior approval of the Fund
(provided, that the Fund member is not authorized to institute
discriminatory exchange measures under similar circumstances
on exchange transactions with members of the Fund without
prior approval of the Fund)
"The foregoing decision of the Executive Board requires
appropriate amendment of Rules M-3, M-4 and M-5 of the Fund's
Rules and Regulations. As soon as this action has been
taken, I shall be pleased to transmit to you the amended text
of these Rules.
"The Fund is informing all of its members of this
decision and I would appreciate it if you would inform the
CONTRACTING PARTIES of the Fund's action in this regard." GATT/CP/ 52
page 2
"Reference is made to my letter of August 19, 1949, (l)
concerning direct consultation of contracting parties which
are not members of the Fund with the Fund on the monetary
aspects of problems arising in the course of the application
of GATT. I have informed you that the Fund is prepared to
cooperate in the development of informal and temporary arrange-
ments for such consultations.
"I am attaching hereto a draft on procedure for the in
formation of the CONTRACTING PARTIES. These rules would
become effective upon your communication that you consider
them satisfactory.
" I understand that the CONTRACTING PARTIES intend to
issue later procedural provisions concerning application of
special exchange agreements. The Fund is prepared to con-
sider additional rules on direct consultation as soon as it
receives. information on the procedural provisions decided by
the CONTRACTING PARTIES concerning special exchange agreements.
"Rules of Procdure for Direct
Consultation Between an Individual
"(1) The following rules of procedure pertain to direct
consultation of an individual contracting party which is not
a member of the Fund with the Fund.
"(2) Upon the application of a contracting party which is
not a member of the Fund to consult with the Fund the
Chairman shall communicate such request to the Fund. The
Fund will thereupon enter into direct consultation with the
contracting party concerned. No information shall be
released by the Chairman to the other contracting parties on
the initiation of the direct consultation.
"(3) The subject matter of the direct consultation is
limited to problems relative to monetary reserves balances
of payments and foreign exchange arrangements The con-
sultation may concern the actual position of a contracting
party or problems which may arise under specified. future
conditions.
"(4) Direct consultation will take place as a rule at the
principal office of the Fund. However, in exceptional cir-
cumstances it may be conducted at another place agreed upon
between the contracting party and the Fund. The time of
consultation shall be agreed upon directly between the con-
tracting party and the Fund.
"(5) The representatives of the contracting party shall
present to the Fund customary credentials.
(1) The letter of 19 August, 1949, was distributed in
GATT/CP/28. GATT/CP,/52
page 3
"(6) The contracting party shall supply the Fund with
such information as is necessary for the consideration of
the problems involved. The contracting party may designate
certain material confidential and request the Fund not to
divulge it without the consent of the contracting party.
(7) The Fund will prepare brief minutes on the direct
consultation with the cooperation of the contracting party.
"(8) The CONTRACTING PARTIES' function pursuant to GATT
remains unaffected by the direct consultation of a con-
tracting party with the Fund. Nor does the direct con-
sultation affect the consultative procedure between the
CONTRACTING PARTIES and the Fund pursuant to GATT. However,
upon application of the contracting party which requested
the direct consultation the minutes and the other material
used in the direct consultation may be released by the Fund
to the CONTRACTING PARTIES in order to be used in the course
of the consultation between the contracting party and the
CONTRACTING PARTIES.
"(9) The Fund will inform the Chairman of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES regarding the termination of the direct consultations |
GATT Library | nr101hc0446 | Special exchange Agreements : Note by the Executive Secretary | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 31, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 31/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/16 and GATT/CP.5/14-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nr101hc0446 | nr101hc0446_90330096.xml | GATT_141 | 590 | 3,648 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATT/CP.5/16
TARIFFS AND TRADE 31 October 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH;`',
RACTING PARTIESonL
th Session SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREE
Note by tn 2x0he Executive eten
§Chc rThe r^ :ioreme of icle XV tY :1.that contrating ies whici areh
net zgo.bmembers ho Internaticna1 onal Monetary Fund shall eer to cpeeispec
exchange aagragreements with the Contracting Parties was reviewed at at thorth1cerzh
Sessand resoultions were adopted requiring the acceptance of such agree-cf suasree-
i.,ent b: certain parties ng,> pia ri not latember n N1voc,er 2, i950; if by
hey had not become members of the Fund. The following is the fohl's';.i 'the
positof ; ileresnce of agreements as at 31 October îer±ts a*s at 31etober 1950:
ties have recently jointe the Fund.av recerLtl joined. trc' -
Ceylon become a member of the Fund on 29 August,:aenoe br cf' v}th Foezd0 9 j3Lust;
entered into by Ceylon terminatedent C? tercd intot -,S ' ylc te.inateXd
on that date.
a member of the Fund on 11 July,kis~ zx: b4C-C'ie '. z:.enco:r cf ta.c , unil Juily,
t with the hnrofore riaF îot ctercd<;`0 intoJl arL a~rcr:é.iC titkl the^
Cantracting Parti s.
reements forntractinj parties aren r!C n.:'berE cf> t:.c F'i'J<lCL aerCi.lts fior
>tcceptv'.n?co bL, t;r._OC cOrtra.,ti.A. r`Lties hav'e b c-n depcs.i':ith+ tfLc
1,uceert .ry-Gc;nern cf tlhc ijr:ie ou ations. G.~ kav ic>- nt t fa r becn
accepted by tho -,
/ Bur2zm Ti±ca Burnose s De1o r>atiaon : C.S< i't Ec'v rI^ iCI!t fer inL ;ioïI.
/ ilait: Tu1 Govera i.ze:t c-f H>lC ti hq;.s v.t"p.? :ed. f- rx neLc.brs ti he: i9uid
and. ccnditiCa1s cf» ;ne::i.bershi." havEe beea atr< .rU tncn. l' .ti.hn
cf Haiti. kas askcd ifs Gvern>.>ext f t "r i. f'..r.aWticn.
J Indonolsi: LiTh Ocvern::ent *f <!1sin i'hal> is ap> p}-ic&W fr :.C.e: >ershSi i,^ th
Fu.acld, L'Ui propv.ose;s :.li-'avn,''ilc 4te enera i1to' .c1i roeléé. .eat wLzh the}
ContracQtirl P..rtio;s. L:e CQvc:V^!. >!t ,' Inc:rdcsJjl i' crdls t .V.1J.*v-l
it se1 f e hc tranltic j J a?-l*rr. , ,c ciQ ,f Lr 't ijciC i.Y
i'k;;'-w Zealand: Irie( Ne-W ZcGn1IccS! d.cl(e;*-s2acbc 1.4' 'c.Jsea ritià .Jl.`* :LL *r<)verné.c(Lt
' h.as guivcr± rc >tfcjX ckî:ldcia':C.tij. ti . roszClutzc?.i u<^Xtcci è tihe
Contract Pr ±->arstierg ;.:i .3r. Jiatxlli )'5C'", b»; wti.l ti- u..ti:r a;re
certain seri.c'S ~Li.fl'iCUtiCeS t! t`, jxctscflt '.iit;unti.ft, ;lC.L iî6 cc.-r
sideXro affect a21lCCil u e e 'lJ. CLi> il 1*'rt eC'.r 1cr t*]ii` c *U,_,r.-:v.i`':
cf' Jdrfic1e XVL(6m o= ti' c .tiS.. i. £ i .t '' c:rl "1. 'k £"ct Ii, . lr.nct
d.ele',rnficxi citate' t <*t i . -.L'. 1::«?lxtcci' C '.> Srii)')rtytjL2L¼ ts? 'li:»cLa4:
t,7!tit fL .c ' iv Zc"±bC- L :.' v.'r' . ,cil c . Z.:W1 't ;li.:''C: t l~. i . c El'î: an>
ac'cc'Çcl8lcCç '. tL ti . u>.n .e .: t,. <-. ;. i > r'"
,Swecd.n iike 0-vrov:lliL+t .c I' r1_ "-. '*i *.« u i >ti? ' 'Q*9 rsi i1p :I. Wc "z ' l'Oi
2i~ ` ;|,LU',urt '...t thoUt..; r .e ;,,i. I . .1 ,a i L 'ci d.van'erSecC st c~ s ^*ci ',k i|
,Svc&lerr -sXln1j LCCY!;:C r.. LeF 1cr -o', L.1 t 1':-Ii - L: thu. ~izfi :v,rccs;, tlcl4
thatt c. 1" ce'''' ;te V I'r SC.,'c.r , "Lni!!'' tic . t'WICi.. ,iLi Pc! "`C.3ctC.4f'x L'', toc:
Conltrac u.u4rac t;'!jics. ( i .1X s r r. '^l;ti.'n c k9L cI. 5'i'i. iL .c' sj.:'n,`S.-l ?
'i6:CR+ s)vcrn>.o v.é 'naC. r .CC!! '` . / >c ..bur : t ..i.tl.i;`i bu c';'nii.reu
3:C c:norii a9 cor: ) . ,, 3c.e~bc.~'acîiatii.prO r |
GATT Library | xq798cg6738 | Speech by Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Chairman of the Contracing Parties at the closing meeting of the fourth session | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 4, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/04/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/4/44 and GATT/CP.4/41/Rev.1-45 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xq798cg6738 | xq798cg6738_90320425.xml | GATT_141 | 2,170 | 13,013 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GAT/CP/4/44
TARIFFS AND TRADE 4 April 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
Speech by Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Chairman of the
Contracing Parties at the closing meeting
Representatives of the CONTRACTING PARTIES:.-
We have now completed the work assigned to us for the
Fourth Session. It is only a little over five weeks since
the Session opened on February 23rd. The CONTRACTING PARTIES,
therefore, have shown once more that they can get through a
fairly heavy agenda in an expeditious and business-like manner.
The way in which we have got through our work at this Session
has enabled us to recover the ground lost at the Third Session
at Annecy when the unduly protracted character of our deliber-
ations gave rise to doubts about the ability of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES to administer efficiently the instrument which brought
about their existence.
It is most important that our session should be short and
business-like. It is in this way only that we can be assured
of high-level representation by the individual contracting
parties, which is so important both for the influence of the
CONTRACTING PARTIES on trade problems and for the quality of
their work. The experience which we have gained at this Session
will stand us in good stead at future sessions.There are still
some respects in which the methods of handling our business can
be improved, and I shall touch upon these later on. Before GATT/CP. 4/44
page 2
doing so, however, I would like to stress what we have .been
able to accomplish at this Session.
We have taken important steps in the direction of making
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade a constructive
force for lessening trade barriers and for incrceasing the total
volume of world trade. We have given a prelimimnary examination
to the quantitative restricions now in force with a view to
determining the degree to which they are permitted under the
provisionss of the General Agreement. This has pointed the way
to their progressive removal, which is oneb of the basic object- .
ives of the General Agreement. We have also taken the first
stems in a comprehensive review of the operation of the
balance-of-payments provisions of the General Agreement. While
we have, learned the wisdom of proceeding slowly in this exami-
nation, and perhaps have not accormplished at this Session all
that at one tine seemed likely, we have laid sound foundatioas.
for our futurec activities in this important aspect of our work.
At our next Session our attention will be directed to drawing.
up the type of questionnaire which is likely to be most effect
tive for obtaining the information essential to the future
eXamination of the operation of quantitative restrictions and,
the exceptions the rule of non-discrimination. We have also
arranged for consultations to be undertaken at the next Session
with those contracting parties who have introduced recent
chances into their import programmes. These will comprise the
chief items on the agenda for our, next Session, and I am sure
that between now and the next Session the representatives of
the CONTRACTINH PARTIES will be giving careful thought to the
best methods by which we can pursue these aspects of our work
which are so vital to the future operati on of the General GATT/CP 4/44
page 3
Agreement.
Besides the valuable work which has been done in respect
of quantitative restrictions and the balance-of-payments pro-
visions, we have been able to deal at this Session with a number
of other interesting aspects of our work. We have completed the
arrangements for the 1950 tariff negotiations, which will be the
most ambitious set of tariff negotiations ever undertaken. The
steps taken to secure a prolongation of the assured life of the
eoncessions in the Geneva and Annepy. Schedules has bean an
important part of the preparations for the tariff negotiations.
We have been glad that in addition to representatives of the
Annecy acceding governments, we have had with us at this Session
observers from some of the countries who have declared their
desire to accede to the General Agreement as a result of the
Torquay negotiations. The presence of these observers ha s
materially assisted us in the consideration of these questions.
The Torquay negotiations are being held at a time when tariffs
once more are attaining major significance. I am confident that
the ground has been well-prepared for the negotiations which
will take place at Torquay, and that all that is now needed to
assure the success of these negotiations is for the seed to be
sown in the shape of the proper exchange of request lists, which
we hope will result in the sprouting at Torauay of far-reaching
reductions in tariffs. If this is the case, we will have taken
one further step in the direction of creating those conditions
which, in the not-too-distant future, should permit world trade
to flow with a minimum of interference from trade barriers.
Unlike previous sessions, our Fourth Session has been
characterized by the relatively few commplaints brought by one
contracting party against another. We have, however, dealt
with these complaints in that spirit of understanding, but with GATT/CP.4/44
page 4
a firm adherence to the basic principles of the General
Agreement, which has distinguished the CONTRACTING PARITIES ever
since their inception. We have by now developed a technique for
handling the procedures of the General Agreement concerning the
settlement of disputes which should be invaluable to us in the
future. It should have given rise to that confidence in the
fair-minded and judicial attitude of the CONTRACTING PARTIES
which will enable individual contracting parties in the future
to resort to these procedures with very assurance of receiving
*fair treatment.
The experiences which we have had since the Third Session
at Annecy have shown that, contrary to the expectations at that
Session, there has been no need for the CONTRACTING PARTIES to
resort to the elaborate intersessional procedures which were
drawn up at the Third Session. This is particularly the case
with respect to the balance-of-payments provisions: because
our work relating to these provisions at this Session has been
charted for many months in advance. The fixed time limits in
Article XVIII may make it difficult to avoid resort to inter-
sessional procedures in connection with measures notified under
that Article, but I sincerely trust that the need will not arise
Governments find it difficult enough to spare personnel to
attend our regular sessions and it will become an undue burden
on governments if we have to call upon them also to send
representatives to intersessional committees which might have
to be called at short notice to attend to some matter which
technically could not be held over until the next regular
session, I am sure all representatives of contracting parties
will agree that if means can be found of avoiding resort to
intersessional procedure it will meet with their governments' GATT/CP. 4./44
page 5
approval.
One lesson which we have learned at this Session is that
it is important to begin consideration of time-consuning items
on the agenda as early as possible. I therefore hope that we
will never again have to postpone consideration of-important
and time-consuming item because certain delegations have not
been able to have their experts available at the opening of a
session. It is also very desirable that if any government
places an item on the agenda, they should be prepared to have
this item taken up at an early stage in our deliberations and
not left over until the last days of the session. Experience
at this Session has also shown the desirability of a government
submitting adequate supporting documentation at the same time
as it proposes an iterm for inclusion in the agenda of a session
of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
I am sure that the delegations of the countries concerned
will not object to my having made these criticisms of what
happened at this Session. I do so only in the interest of our
future work. We must also in future endeavour to see that the
reports of our working parties are, so far as possible, taken
up at regular intervals during the session and not left until
the last days of the session. At this Fourth Session seven of
our eight working parties submitted their reports in the closing
days of the Session. Better consideration can be given to these
reports by the CONTRACTING PARTIES if too many of the reports
of working parties do not have to be dealt with in the few days
left to us at the end of a session. I therefore hope that at
our Fifth Session we will be able to arrange that working party
reports are completed and submitted in plenary meeting at
regular intervals throughout the session without leaving too GATT/CP./ 44
page 6
heavy a backlog of work for the closing meetings,
Our proceedings have been clouded-by the sad event which
has deprived us of the active participation of the delegate who
had the longest record of association with the General Agreement
and the events which led up to the conclusion of that instrument.
For those of us who have been identified with this work for a
long time the death of Mr. Shackle was a blow which left us
stunned, and I am sure the same feeling was shared by those of
you who only got to know him at this Session. For most of us,
he was not only a colleague, but also a friend. His contri-
bution to our work was immeasurable. He had attended every one
of our meetings and was identified actively with the preparatory
work of the Havana Charter dating back to the first preliminary
discussions of 1942. In extending our heartfelt sympathies to
the United Kingdom Government and to the United Kingdom
Delegation for the loss they have suffered, we are also conscious
of what it means to all of us to be deprived of the active and
valuable co-operation of "Shack", as he was familiarly known
to most of us.
To turn once again to the brighter side of what we have
been able to accomplish at this Session, I wish to extend our
most sincere thanks to the chairmen of the working parties, who
did so much to contribute to the success of this Session. The
delegations of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia,
Indonesia, the Netherlands, Norway and South Africa can be
congratulated for the contributions which they made to our work
by making available such outstanding chairmen to preside over
our working parties. We have never been better served in this
respect than at this Session.
It is also with gratitude that, once again, the occasion GATT/CP .4/44
page 7
has arisen for me to extend to Mr. Wyndham White and all members
of the Secretariat our sincere thanks for the able and efficient
help they have given to our deliberations. We are fortunate in
having the services of such competent men as our Executive
Secretary and the Associate Executive Secretary, Mr. Royer, both
of whorl did so much to prepare the ground for our deliberations.
The same applies to all members of the Secretariat. There is
probably no international organization which has so small a
secretariat, but there is also probably no other secretariat on
an international organization which can surpass the efficiency
and the cheerful spirit shown by the small group who work for us.
We are indeed fortunate in this respect and it is with great
pleasure that I extend sincere thanks to each and every member
of the Secretariat-.
A heavy burden has fallen during this Session upon our
interpreters and it is difficult to do justice to what we owe
to then. They have, had to work hard with little respite and I
very much feared at one time that we were placing too heavy a
burden upon Mr. Glemet and Miss Ginsberg. I hope the thanks we
extend to them-, and also to Mr. Sartin, will recompense tjem for
the effort they have had to put forth to give us the high
standard of service we required.
Finally, I want to Day my tribute to all the representaitives
of the CONTRACTING PARTIES who have so materially assisted in
making this Session a success. It is due to them that the
constant reiteration of arguments has been avoided and that a
spirit of accommodation has been shown which has enabled us to
get through our work in the time allotted to us. I am sure that
if this spirit continues the CONTRACTING PARTIES will continue
to gain in strength and to fulfil their role as the only inter- GATT/CP.4/44
page 8
national forun in which problems of commercial policy and
international trade are now being discussed on a global basis.
I extend to you all a very happy return to your hone countries
and trust that you will return to our Fifth Session with
renewed vigour to tackle the difficult problems which lie
before us. |
GATT Library | vn330sb8617 | Statement by the French delegation at the seventeenth meeting of the contracting parties concerning the Franco-Italien customs union | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 21, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/30 and GATT/CP.4/23-33/Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vn330sb8617 | vn330sb8617_90320403.xml | GATT_141 | 673 | 4,216 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMTED B GATT/C.4/30 21 mARCH 1950 ORIGINAL : FRENCH
TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Fourth Session
STATEMENT BY THE FRENCH DELEGATION AT THE
SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
CONCERNING THE FRANCO--ITALIEN CUSTOMS UNION
In the course of the Third Session, the French dele-
gation informed the Contracting Partics that a Treaty for a
Customs Union had.been signed on 26 March 1949 by the French
and Italian governments. The French Delegation made it
clear at that time that this information was not being
given in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article XXIV of the General Agreement, since the treaty could
not be considered as binding the French Government until
it had been ratified by the French Parliament, but simply
for the information of the Conracting Partics.
Since that time the legal position has not changed.
New measures, howeverm have been recently taken by the two
governments, and the French Delegation feels it necessary to
bring the matter completely up to date.
It will be remembered that the treaty of 26 March 1949
provided, as a first stage, for the elimination of customs
duties between the two countries and the establishment of a
common tariff. As a second stage, provision was to be made
for the elimination of quotas. However, with the decision
by the OEEC for liberation of trade, the development prov-
ided by the French-Italian treaty was altered, since these
measures gave general precedence to the progressive elimina-
tion of quotas over elimination of customs duties, The
French and Italian governments had, therefore, to harmonize
the procedure of their Customs Union with the more general
decisions of the OEEC; this was the object of the Additional
Protocol of 22 July 1949.
The period of one year provided for the elimination of
customs duties was not maintained, and it has not yet been
possible to fix a new one.
Despite the fact that the realisation of the plan for a
Customs Union has thus been delayed the two governments
have done everything in their power to facilitate its even-
tual entry into force by the adoption in the meantime of
several administrative measures. These measures were the
object of Agreements which were signed in Rome 7n 7 March
last. Their essential provisions are analysed below:
1. In the spirit of the decisions taken by the OEEC, the two
governments decided to proceed in acc berated stages toward the
elimination of all quantitative restrictions in Franco-
Italian trade.
2. With a view to the establishment of a common customs tariff
for the two countries, comparison of the French and Italian
tariffs is being already started, The two governments will soon
decide upon the programme by which customs duties will be
progressively reduced between France and Italy once the
Customs Union treaty is ratified.
3. Certain customs duties which particularly affect the
reciprocal trade of the two countries will be lowered in the
near futures This will concern only about twenty items on GATT/CP.4/30
-2-
both sides, and of course any reductions in duties so agreed
upon will be extended to all the parties to the General
Agreement according to the terms of Article I of the
Agreements Such notification will be made jointly by
the two governments to the Chairman of the Contracting
Parties.
4. Other measures will be taken or provided for, and
studies will be undertaken in areas somewhat outside the
scope of the General Agreement - postal communications,
telecommunications, railways, aviation, emigration and
labor, etc. Apart from the reduction of certain customs
duties, the provisions are of a purely administrative and
practical nature. In any cases they are in conformity with the
terms of international agreements to which the two countries
are parties and, in particular, with the General Agreement,
the principles of the Havana Charter and the resolutions taken
by the OEEC.
They prejudice in no way the realization of the
proposed Custcms Union which, as the Contracting Parties
are aware, remains subject, on the French side, to the
prior approval of the Parliament. |
GATT Library | wh293st4057 | Status of protocols. Addendum. : Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 22, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 22/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/6/Add.1 and GATT/CP.4/1-6 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wh293st4057 | wh293st4057_90320368.xml | GATT_141 | 667 | 4,389 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
IN TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.4/6/Add.1
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 22 February 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
FOURTH SEOSSION
.STATUS OF PROTOCOLS
ADDENDUM
Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession
1. ACCESSION
(a) Signature by Contracting. Parties
The Protocol was signed by twenty-two contracting parties
by the 30th November, 1949. This constituted a decision under
Article XXXIII agreeing to the accession of each of the acceding
Governments.
Cuba is the only contracting party which did not sign the
Protocol. As explained in GATT/TN.1/33 the Government of Haiti
was the only acceding government with which Cuba entered into
tariff negotiations, and therefore Cuba invoked Article XXXV and
announced that the Agreement would not be applicable between Cuba
and the other acceding countries.
(b) Signature by Acceding Governments
(i) The Protocol was signed by Haiti on 10 October, 1949.
Consequently, the Government of Haiti became a contracting party,
with the obligation to apply the Agreement provisionally and to
apply Schedule XXVI to the trade of all other contracting parties,
as from 1 January, 1950.
(ii) The Protocol was signed by Greece on 7 February, 1950.
Consequently, the Government of Greece will become a contracting
party with the obligation to apply the agreement provisionally
and to apply Schedule XXV to the trade of all other contracting
parties, as from 9 March, 1950.
(iii) The Protocol was signed by Liberia on 28 November, 1949.
The Government of Liberia will become a contracting party when it
accepts the Protocol Modifying Part I and Article XXIX and the
Protocol Modifying Article XXVI, as required by paragraph 6 of the GATT/CP. 4/ 6/Add.1
Page 2
Protocol of Terms of Accession.
(iv) Signature of the Protocol is required by 30 April,
1950, by Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Italy, Nicaragua,
Sweden and Uruguay.
2. APPLICATION OF SCHEDULES BY CONTRACTING PARTIES
(i) Notifications by contracting parties of their intention to
apply the concessions provided for in their respective Schedules
in Annex A to the Protocol have been deposited by Benelux,
Canada, and the United States with effect from 1 January, 1950.
The United Kingdom has applied the concessions provided for in
Schedule XIX to the Protocol as from 1 January,.1950, although
formal notification has not yet been deposited. Also, notifi-
cation has been received that the concessions provided for in
their Schedules will be applied by Czechoslovakia as from 12
February and by Ceylon as from 3 March, 1950. Thus the con-
cessions provided for in the Schedules named are applicable as
from the dates specified to the trade of all other contracting
parties and they become applicable to acceding governments as
and when they become contracting parties.
(ii) Two of the contracting parties named in (i) above, Czecho-
slovakia and the United States, have taken action-under para-
graph 4 of the Protocol, and have thus far applied only those
concessions provided for in their Schedules in Annex A which
were negotiated with the Government of Haiti. It is their in-
tention to apply the other concessions provided for in their
Schedule as and when the acceding governments with which the con-
cessions were negotiated become contracting parties.
(iii) Notifications, under paragraph 3 of the Protocol, of in-
tention to apply the concessions provided for in the Annecy
Schedules are required by 30 April, 1950, from Australia, Brazil,
Chile, China, France, India, Lebanon, New Zealand, Norway, Pakis-
tan, Syria and South Africa.
3. APPLICATION OF GENEVA SCHEDULES
The contracting parties are obliged to apply their respect-
ive schedules negotiated in Geneva in 1947 to each acceding
government as and when it becomes a contracting party. The GATT/CP. 4/ 6/Add .1
Page 3.
Cuban Schedule has presumably been applied to the trade of Haiti,
but will not be applied to the trade of the other acceding
governments. The Government of Southern Rhodesia has notified
the Secretary General of the United Nations that the concessions
granted to the original contracting parties have been extended to
the acceding governments since 10 October, 1949. |
GATT Library | my481vy5855 | Status of protocols. Corrigendum. : Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 25, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/6/Add.1/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.4/1-6 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/my481vy5855 | my481vy5855_90320369.xml | GATT_141 | 229 | 1,695 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.4/6/
Add. l/Corr.1
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 25 February 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
STATUS OF PRQTOCOLS
CORRIGENDUM
Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession
Paragraph 2(ii) should read as follows: "Three of the
contracting parties named in (i) above, Canada, Czechoslovakia
and the United States, have taken action under paragraph 4 of
the Protocol, and have thus far applied only those concessions
provided for in their Schedules in Annex A which were negotiated
with the Government of Haiti, It is their intention to apply
the other concessions provided for in their Schedules, as and
when the acceding governments with which the concessions were
negotiated become contracting parties."
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Quatrieme Session
SITUATION DES PROTOCOLES
CORRIGENDUM
Protocle d'Annecy des Conditions d'Adhesion
Le paragraph 2 (ii) du document GATT/CP.4/6/Add.1 doit
etre conçu comme suit: "Trois des parties contractantes
mentionnees a l'alinea (i) ci-dessus, le Canada, les Etats-Unis
et la Tchecoslovaquie, ont pris des mesures en vertu du para-
graphe 4 du Protecole et n'ont applique jusqu'ici que celles des
concessions qrevues dans leurs listes tarifaires de l'Annexe A
qui avaient ete negociees avec le gouvernement de Haiti. Ces
Gouvernements ont intention d'appliquer les autres concessions
prevues dans leurs listes, respectives des que les Gouvernements
adherents avec lesquels les concessions ont ete negociees seront
devenus parties contractantes." |
GATT Library | sp487cp3483 | Status of Protocols. (Item 6 of the Agenda). Draft. : Resolution inviting the Contracting Parties to accept all amending protocols to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which have been drawn up by the Contracting Parties | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 16, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 16/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/26 and GATT/CP.4/23-33/Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sp487cp3483 | sp487cp3483_90320397.xml | GATT_141 | 263 | 1,777 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
TARIFFS AND TRADE LIMITED B GATT/CP.4/26
16 March 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
STATUS OF PROTOCOLS
(Item 6 of the Agenda)
DRAFT.
RESOLUTION INVITING THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO ACCEPT
ALL AMENDING PROTOCOLS TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE WHICH HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP BY THE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES,
TAKING NOTE that several of the Protocols amending the
provisions and Schedules of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, which have been drawn up at the sessions of the
Contracting Parties and opened for signature or acceptance by
the contracting parties, have not to date been accepted by all
the contracting parties, and
CONSIDERING that the existence of two versions of certain
articles of the General Agreement, which results in contracting
parties being subject to different rights and obligations,
may cause confusion and impair the smooth operation of the
General Agreement, and
CONSIDERING that the governments which will participate in
'the Torquay tariff negotiations with a view to acceding to the
General Agreement will be required to accept all amendments to
the Agreement which have been drawn up by the Contracting Parties,
RESOLVE that the establishment of a uniform text of the
General Agreement applicable to all contracting parties alike is
highly desirable, and
HEREBY INVITE those contracting parties which have not
signed or deposited instruments of acceptance for all the
amending protocols to the Agreement to give renewed consideration
to these protocols with a view to their signature or acceptance
prior to the opening of the Torquay tariff negotiations on
28 September 1950. |
GATT Library | cn069kz1769 | Status of Protocols. (Item 6 of the Agenda). Draft. : Resolution inviting the Contracting Parties to accept all amending protocols to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Wtich Have been drawn up by the Contracting Parties | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 21, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/26/Rev.1 and GATT/CP.4/23-33/Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cn069kz1769 | cn069kz1769_90320398.xml | GATT_141 | 268 | 1,791 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.4/26/Rev.1
21 March 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
STATUS OF PROTOCOLS
(Item 6 of the Agenda)
DRAFT
RESOLUTION INVITING THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
TO ACCEPT ALL AMENDING PROTOCOLS TO THE GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE WTICH HAVE ?TN
DRAWN UP BY THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES,
TAKING NOTE that several of the Proticols modifying the
Articles, Annexes, and Schedules of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, which have been drawn up at the sessions
of the Contracting Parties and opened for signature or
acceptance by all the contracting parties, and
CONSIDERING that the existence of two versions of certain
articles of the General Agreement, which results in con-
tracting parties being subject to different rights and obliga-
tions, may cause confusion and impair the smooth operation
of the General agreement, and
CONSIDERING that it is their intention that a term of
the accession of the governments which will participate in
the Torquay tariff negotiations with a view to acceding to
the General Agreement will be the acceptance of all modifica-
tions of the Agreement which have been drawn up by the
Contracting Parties,
RESOLVE that the establishment of a uniform text of the
General Agreement applicable to all contracting parties alike
is highly desirable, and;
HEREBY INVITE those contracting parties which have not
signed or deposited instruments of acceptance for all the
protocols modifying the Agreement to give renewed consideration
to these protocols with a view to their signature or
acceptance prior to the opening of the Torquay tariff negotia-
tions on 28 September 1950. |
GATT Library | tx326rh1153 | Status of Protocols. (Item 6 of the Agenda). : Resolution imviting the Contracting Parties to accept all amending protocols to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which have been drawn up by the Contracting Parties. (Adopted by the Contracting Parties on March 21, 1950) | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 21, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/26/Rev.2 and GATT/CP.4/23-33/Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tx326rh1153 | tx326rh1153_90320399.xml | GATT_141 | 284 | 1,892 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.4/26/Rev.2
21 March 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
STATUS OF PROTOCOLS
(Item 6 of the Agenda)
RESOLUTION IMVITING THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO
ACCEPT ALL AMENDING PROTOCOLS TO THE GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE WHICH HAVE BEEN
DRAWN UP BY THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
(Adopted by the CONTRACTING PARTIES on March 21, 1950)
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES,
TAKING NOTE that several of the Protocols modifying the
Articles, Annexes, and Schedules of' the General agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, which have been drawn up at the sessions of
the Contracting Parties and opened for signature or acceptance
by all the contracting parties have not to date been accepted
by all the contracting parties, and
CONSIDERING that the existence of two versions of certain
articles of the General Agreement, which results in contracting
parties being subject to different rights and obligations, may
cause confusion and impair the smooth operation of the General
Agreement, and
CONSIDERING that it is their intention that a term of the
accession of the governments which will participate in the
Torquay tariff negotiations with a view to acceding to the
General Agreement will be the acceptance of all modifications of
the Agreement which have been drawn up by the Contracting Parties,
RESOLVE that the etablishment of a uniform text of the
General Agreement applicable to all contracting parties alike
is highly desirable, and,
HEREBY INVITE those contracting parties which have not
signed or deposited instruments of acceptance for all the pro-
tocols modifying the agreement to give renewed consideration
to these protocols with a view to their signature or acceptance
prior to the opening of the Torquay tariff negotiations on 28
September 1950. |
GATT Library | gb472tw4488 | Status of Protocols to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, January 27, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 27/01/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/69 and GATT/CP.4/1-6 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gb472tw4488 | gb472tw4488_90320367.xml | GATT_141 | 253 | 1,723 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.4/69
27 January 1950
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Fourth Session
Status of Protocols to the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade
1. Protocols in force but not accepted by all contracting
parties :
(i) Protocol 2 - Special Protocol relating to Article XXIV.
Not accepted by Australia, Brazil, Burma, Ceylon,
Lebanon, New Zealand, Southern Rhodesia and Union
of South Africa.
(ii) Protocol 5 - Protocol Modifying Part II and Article
XXVI .
Not accepted by Brazil.
2. Protocols not yet in force:
(a) Protocol requiring acceptance by two-thirds of the
contracting parties :
Protocol 7 - Protocol Modifying Azticle XXVI
Not accepted by Burma, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba,
Luxemburg, Netherlands, Syria and Union of South
Africa.
(b) Protocols requiring acceptance or signature by all the
contracting parties :
(i) Protocol 4 - Protocol Modifying Part I and
Article XXIX
Not accepted by Brazil and Chile.
(ii) Protocol 8 - Protocol replacing Schedule I
(Australia).
Not signed by Burma, Ceylon, Cuba and Syria.
(iii) Protocol 9 - Protocol replacing Schedule VI
(Ceylon).
Not signed by Burma, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba,
India and Syria.
(iv) Third Protocol of Rectifications.
Not signed by Burma, Ceylon, Cuba and Syria.
(v) First Protocol of Modifications.
Not signed by Burma, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba,
India and Syria.
3. The Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession
The situation with respect to the Annecy Protocol has
not altered since document GATT/CP/40/Add.6 was issued
on ll January. |
GATT Library | jd325yw9031 | Status of protocols to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Addendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 29, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/6/Add.3 and GATT/CP.4/1-6 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jd325yw9031 | jd325yw9031_90320371.xml | GATT_141 | 182 | 1,296 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATT/CP.4/6/Add.3
TARIFFs AND TRADE 29 March 1950
FRENCH
CONThACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
STATUS OF PROTOCOLS TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
ADDENDUM
Protocol Mndifying Article XXVI
The Government of the Netherlands deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations on 28 March an instrument
of acceptance for Protocol 7 modifying Article XXVI. Consequently,
the amendment to paragraph 4 of Article XXVI, provided for in
that Protocol, became effective in respect of those contracting
parties which have aocepted the protocol on 28 March, 1950,
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Quatrieme Session
SITUATION DES PROTOCOLES RELATIFS A L'ACCORD GENERAL
SUR LES TARIFS DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE
ADDENDUM
Protocole portant modification de l'article XXVI
Lo 28 mars 1950, le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas a depose
aupres du Secretaire general des Nations Unies I'instrument d'ac-
ceptation du protocol No 7 portant modification de l'article
XXVI. En consequence, 1 amendement apprete au paragraph 4 de
article XXVI, en vertu dudit protocol, est entre en vigueur
a l'egard des parties contractantes qui avaient accept ledit
protocolle a la date du 28 mars 1950. |
GATT Library | mf222mb6491 | Status of protocols to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Addendum. : Protocol 7 - Protocol Modifying Article XXVI | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 23, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 23/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/6/Add.2 and GATT/CP.4/1-6 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/mf222mb6491 | mf222mb6491_90320370.xml | GATT_141 | 117 | 832 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 4/6/Add. 2
23 March 1950
ORIGINAL:ENGLISH & FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
STATUS OF PROTOCOLS TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
ADDENDUM
Protocol 7 - Protocol Modifying Article XXVI
According to advice received from the Secretary-
General of the United Nations, on 13 March Luxemburg
deposited an instrument of acceptance of the above protocol.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Quatrieme Session
SITUATION DES PROTOCLE RELATIES A L'ACCORD
GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS DOUANIERS ET LE
COMMERCE
ADDENDUM
Protocole No 7 - Protocole portant modificatiosns de
l'Article XXVI
Selon notification reçue du Secretaire general des
Nations Unies, le Luxembourg a depose l'instrument
d'acceptation du protocol susindique, le 13 mars 1950. |
GATT Library | mk294mw6788 | Status of the Voltaic Republic : Notification Relating to Article XXVI, (c) by the Government of France | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 15, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) | 15/08/1950 | official documents | L/1247 and L/1243/ADD.3-L/1262/ADD.2 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/mk294mw6788 | mk294mw6788_90730202.xml | GATT_141 | 146 | 988 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON L/1247
TARIFFSAND TRADE
limited Distribution
STATUS OF THE VOLTAIC REPUBLIC
Notification Relating to Article XXVI, (c) by
the Government of France
The following notification, dated 8 August 1960, has been received from
the French Government:
"With reference to Article ZZVI:5(c) of the General Agreement,
I have the honour to inform you that the Voltaic Republic has
acquired, as from the date of 5 August, full autonomy in the conduct
of its eternal commercial relations as provided for in the above-
mentioned paragraph of the General Agreement."
This matter will be included in the provisional agenda for the seventeenth
session. In the- meanwhile the Executive Secretary is proceeding to carry out
the consultations with the Goverments of France and of the Voltaic Republic
envisaged in paragraph 2 of the Recommendation of 1 November 1957 (Basic
Instruments and Selected Documents, Sixth Supplement, page 11). |
GATT Library | jd463vd6922 | Subsidies : Communiciation from the Government of Italy | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 18, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.17 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jd463vd6922 | jd463vd6922_90300230.xml | GATT_141 | 473 | 3,127 | RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP/58/Add. 17
TARIFFS AND TRADE 18 October 1950
ENGLISH
ORIGINAL: FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SUBSIDIES
Communiciation from the Government
of Italy
Italy is listed in dacumen GATT/CP/58/Add. 10 among the
Governments which advised tnat they did not grant or maintain any
subsidy required to be notified under Article XVI. An explanatory
memorandum has new been received and is reproduced below.
"No export bountry or subsidy is granted in Italy. Custous
duties represent the only form of protection granted to industrial or
agricultural duction.
The quantitative restrictions that Italy had to impose to safe-
guard her balance of payments are being eliminated within the general frame-
work of trade liberation measures (...inisterial Decree of 15 July 1950)
Further independent measures have been adopted as, regards imports
from the sterling area (Foreign Trade iinistry Circcular of 31 August 1950.).
Italy does not apply any price support measures. The task of the
Inter-departmental Price Committee instituted under Law. No. 347 of 19 October
1944 is rather t: fix price limits for some raw materialsals and staple food or
industrial products in great demand among consures.
The only two industries to which state subsidies are granted are
the coal industry in Sardinia and the sulphur industry in Sicily.
The above-mentioned subsidies are based on the need for giving.
work to part of the labour force available in ardinia and Sicily - that is,
in two regions where demographic pressure is particularly acute in relation
The atm of these subsidies is therefore of - social rather than of
an economic nature, and these measures will remain in force until such time
as the technical reoroanisation of these industries 1:.kes it possible to reduce
the cost of production to international level.
As regards the effects of export and import subsidies, it will suffice
to note that:
(a) the quantity of coal produced in Italy is very shall as compared
with internal c-nsuc ption, and furthermore that Sulcis coal is
suitable for a limited number of uses only;
(b) sulphur has never been imported into Italy, as the level of
national production has always been adequate to .cet internal
demand and has even allowed the export of surpluses.
This picture would not be complete if non1 10 IIti 11 were made of state
intervention with respect to the regulation of th wheat and beetr--rt markets.
Such measures are directed towards ensuring the mainenance, on a rel unerative
basis, of the production of these two c.i,..., Idities, which are essential to the
Italian agricultural economy, while aiming at allowing bread and sugar prices
to be fixed at the lowest possible level.
Though the measures concerned may have some consequnces on imports,
they are justified by the need for safeguarding the vital interests of the country,
whereas economic protection is achieved by ;;Ceens of customs duties. " |
GATT Library | dt423mw5011 | Subsidies. Notification required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 29, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.18 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dt423mw5011 | dt423mw5011_90300231.xml | GATT_141 | 146 | 918 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
PESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add. 18
29 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATION REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY THE DECISION
OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF 2 MARCH 1950
The following communications have been received:
1) From Brazil, dated 21 November:-
"The provisions for the development of certain products,
now in effect in Brazil, do not interfere with inter-
national trade and, therefore, do not come under the
provisions of Article XVI".
2) From the Dominican Republic, dated 17 November:-
".the Dominican Republic does not grant or maintain any
subsidies which operate directly or indirectly either
to increase exports or to reduce imports.''
3) From Haiti, dated 21 November: -
"The Governmentt of Haiti has not granted or is not main-
taining any subsidy of the type mentioned in Article, XVI." |
GATT Library | yk523cn1683 | Subsidies. Notification required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by Canada | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 28, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 28/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.14 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yk523cn1683 | yk523cn1683_90300227.xml | GATT_141 | 3,605 | 22,046 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B GATT/CP/58/Add.14
TARIFFS AND TRADE 28 September 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATION REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH 1950
Notification by Canada
Calendar Year 1949 or Fiscal Year 1949-50
Where Indicated
This report has been prepared pursuant to the obligation
under Article XVI of the Gemeral Agreement of Tariffs and Trade to notify
the CONTRACTING PARTIES of any subsidies, including any from of income or
price Support, leading directly or indirectly to increased exports or to
reducd imports.
Federal subsidies ineluding any from of income or price
support which might be considered under the purview of Artice XVI are
discussed under two main headings:
I Agricultural products
II Mineral products
Notification of each subsidy in each group is given
under the following sub-headings:- Legal authority for the subsidy;
Circumstances; Extent and nature; Cost and effect.
I SUBSIDIES GRANTED OR MAINTAIRED ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
1. GRAIN AND GRAIN PRODUCTS
Western Grains, Whole or Ground, Wheat Bran, Wheat Shorts,
Wheat Middlings, Wheat Secrenings and Nillfeeds
Authorization - P.C. 7523, 25 September 1941, P.C.5434
17 November 1949, with respect to freight assistance.
Circumstances - This was a wartime measure designed to utilize sur-
plus feed !. _ and to assist Eastern farmere in obtaining the
necessury Western food -r'I us and .:L.lJ at prices which would
Exten1 and Nature - The subsidy which covers practically all froight
charges is paid on Western grains an millfeeds moved in carload lots
from Fort William-Port Arthur to points in Estern Canada and from
points in Western Canada to British Columbia. The subsidy is not
paid on grains and feeds which are exported. Wholesale receivers are
reimbursed the -:,mant of the freight when proof of usage is submitted.
Cost - The rate of freight assitstance per ton varies from $6.00 to
$20.00 depending on the length of the froight haul. The total cost
of feed freight assistance in the calendar year 1949 anounted to
$16,254,000. The cost from January l to May 31, 1950, amounted to
$3,813,000. GATT/CP/58/Add.14
Page 2.
Effect - This program has probably had three effects. The most important is
that it has reduced imports of feeds by encouraging Canadan consumption. It also
has decreased Western Canadian exports of feeds. Finally it may have caused an
increase in Canadian exports of pork and pork products through the lowering of
production costs.
2. LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
Hog Premiums
Authorization P. C. 62, 10 January 1944, amended April 1946,
Circumstances - This payment was designed to improve the quality of Canadian
bacon and to encourage the channelling of such hogs through inspected plants.
Extent and Nature - Payment of the quality premium is confined to producers
who deliver their hogs for slaughter at inspected plants or approved establish-
ments throughout Canada. The farmer receives withn his settlement statement a
hog premium warrant which is negotiable at par at any chartered bank. The Go-
vernment then reimburses the bank. In 1949 a premium of $2. 00 per head was
paid on "A" grade carcass and $1.00 per head on "B-1" grade. The same premium
rates apply in 1950.
Cost - In the calendar year 1949 hog premium payments cost the government
$4,696,000. In 1950, up to April 30, the government paid out $463,000 in hog
premiums. The total number of hogs on farms in Canada at June 1, 1949 was esti-
mated at 5,163,000, valued at $178,362,000.
Effect - Although the quality premium has not brought about a .marked increase in
top quality hogs marketed in Canada, it, is considered to have maintained the
proportion of the top grade hoge in the face of rising feed conts. Although Ca-
nadian production and exports of pork and pork products have declined in recent
years, this subsidy has facilitated production and exports of top grades of these
products.
Subsidy in connection with Canada - United Mingdom Bacon Export Agreement of 1950
Authorization:AgriculturaI Products Act,1947; P.C.323, January 201950.
Circumstances - Because of the ohanged conditions of The market and the more intense
exchange difficulties abroad, the 1350 Export Agreement on bacon with the United
Kingdom called for a much smaller quantity at a considerably lower price
(60 m. lbs. at 29 ¢ per lb, in 1950 as compared with 160 m. lbs. at 36 ¢ per
lb. l949.) In order to prevent this sharp downward adjustment in the quantity
and price of the export agreement from demoralizing the canadian hog market,
and bringing about a serious reduction in the income of hog producers, the go-
vernment took steps to stabilize the market. This was accomplished through the
Meat Board offering to buy all deliveries of the proper grade of bacon at
32.5 ó per lb. which was 3.5 ¢ above the price for export, but 3.5 ¢
below the 1949 contract price.
Extent and Nature - Since the contract price is 29¢ per lb. and the price which
the Meat Board will pay for the same grade is 32.5¢, the government is in fact
paying an export subsidy on shipments to the United Kingdom of 3.5ó per lb, So far
sales to the Meat Board are conaiderably below the contract requirement so that
the price support operation has not resulted in any accumulation of bacon stocks.
Cost - During the first six months of 1950, Canadian Govenment expenditure in con-
nection with this subsidy amounted to about $0.5 million. The total value of
marketings of hogs during this same period is estimated at about $150 miillion.
Effect - The subsidy has tended to maintain Canadian production and exeports to the
United Kilngdom at a higher level than they would otherwise be. GATT/CP/58/Add. 14
Page 3.
Silver Fox Pelts (Including Platinum and White Marked)
Authorization - The Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, 1939.
Circumstances - Producers frequently find themselves in a tight credit position
early in the season and for this reason are compelled to unload large quantities
of pelts on the market. The guaranteed advance payment provides needed financial
assistance at this time and facilitates orderly marketing.
Extent ,and Nature - Agreeraents are made by the Minister of Agriculture with fox
pelt marketing associations who agree to market the product under a co-operative
plan. The operation involves no loss to the government unless the selling price
is less than the initial advance,
.Cost Initial payments under the 1949-1950 agreements represent approximately
50 per cent of the kast three year average wholesale prices. The actual average
guarantee per pelt is approximately 4.0 per cent below the average initial payment
of the 1948-1949 season,
Effect - Although there has been a steady decline in production of ranch raised
foxes and exports of fox polts since 1939, this subsidy has probably had the of-
fect of maintaining exports at levels higher than would otherwise have prevailed.
1. DAIRY PRODUCTS
Cheese Quality Premiums
Authorization - Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, 1939, as amended.
Circumstances - The purpose of the subsidy is to improve the quality of cheddar
cheese,
Extent and Nature - The subsidy is paid to cheese factories by the Federal De-
partment of Agriculture en high quality, cheese graded at government grading
stations. The cheese factories distribute it to their milk supplies, The
amount of the subsidy is one per cent per pound on cheese scoring 93 points and
two cents on cheese scoring 94 points or more.
Cost - The amount of the subsidy was $910,000 in 1949, payable on 66,500,000
pounds, and $108,000 for January 1 - May 31, 1950. Total production of cheddar
cheese in 1949 was 113,787,000 pounds, valued at approximately $34 million.
Effect While production and exports of cheddar cheese have declined in recent
years this subsidy has probably facilitated the production and exports of high
quality cheese.
Cheese -Price Sup-port
Authorization 1949 - Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, as amended, and
P.C. 4325, August 24, 1949, 1950 - Agricultural Products Act, 1947, and P.C.
366, Janury 25., 1950.
Gircumstances - The effect of the United Kingdom contracts was to provide a floor
price for cheese from 1940 to August 1, 1949 when the 1949 contract terminated
Prom August 24 to December 31, 1949 purchases were made by the Agricultural
Prices Support Board in order to avoid a sharp decline in prices which would
have resulted in hardship to the dairy industry. In 1950 a subsidy is being
provided by, the Federal Government to help absorb the shock of a sharp decline
in the export price.
Extent and Nature - The 1949 United Kingdom contract called for the shipment
of 50 million pounds of cheese at a price of 30¢, per pound, first grade, f.o.b.
factory. The contract was filled by August and the Agricultural Prices Support
Board undertook to buy cheese produced on or after August 1, 1949 at the contract
price. GATT/P/58/Add.14
Page 4.
A new cheese contract was negotiated in 1950, calling for the shipment
of 70 to 84,7 million pounds of cheese at a price of 25¢ per pound, f irst
grade, f. a. s. Canadian Seaboard. The Dairy Products Board was authorized to
buy the cheese necessary to fill the contract at 28¢ per pound, first grade,
f.as. Canadian Seaboard, the 3ó difference between this price and the contract
price is paid from funds provided by the Canadian government.
Cost - At May 31, 1950 the book value of cheese held by the Agricultural Prices
Support Board was $5,347,000 and the quantity 1697 million pounds. It is ex-
pected that most of this amount will be sold and the expenditure recovered,
From January 1 - May 31, 1950 the cost of the 3¢ subsidy on cheese purchased
by the Dairy Products Board for the United Kingdom contract was $20,000.
Effect - While the volume of exports has not increased the subsidy has a direct
effect in maintaining production and exports of cheddar cheese to the United.
Kingdom,
Authorization - Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, as a,emded; P. C. 1573,
April 14, 1949, P.C. 1609, March 28, 1950 and P.C. 2126, April 25, 1950.
C-;'r--nltance,5- The production of butter in Canada is usually about sufficient to
meet demestic needs. Small surpluses or deficiencies occur from time to time.
In light of the wide fluctuation in the output of butter during the 1947-48 season,
and the uncertainty respecting butter marketing in the 1948-49 season, the trade
was unwilling to undertake the usual storage operations. In order to avoid ex-
treme price fluctuations the Government on April 1, 1949 established a floor price
for butter under the Aricultural Prices Support Act.
Extant and Nature - From April 1, 1949 to April 30, 1950, the support price for
first grante butter was 58¢ per pound basis delivery Montreal and Toronto, From
May 1, 1930 to April 30, 1951 the support prices will be 53¢ per pound basis de-
livery Mentreal and Toronto.
Cost - The inventory at book value for butter held by the Board at May 31, 1950
was $11,334,000 and the quantity 19. limillion pounds. It is expected that most
of the amount outstanding will be recovered. Production of creamery butter in
1949 in Canada amounted to 278, 657, 000 pounds, valued at approximately
$153,261,000.
Effect - Exports of butter, all by private trade, in 1949 amounted to 1,069,000
pound. Experts in the year 1950 up to April 30 amounted to 641,000 pounds, al-
most all of which was sold from government held stocks. The export prices of this
quantrity of butter was about 20¢ below the domestic selling price.
Dry Shairmed Milk Price Support-
Authorization - Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, as amended and P.C. 2250,
May 27, 1949.
Circumstances - There was a considerable accumulation of this product in 1949 due
largedy to import restrictions imposed abroad despite diversion of manufacture of
dry skimard milk and butter to cheese and other products. Price support operations
were undertaken to prevent a sharp price decline.
Extent and Nature - The Board was authorized to buy first grade dry skimmed milk
to a maximen expenditure of $1 million at 9,5¢ per pound for the roller processed
product and 10.75¢ per pound for the spray processed products, f o.b. country
points. GATT/CP/58/Add. 14
Page 5.
Cost - The actual amount purchased was 10,380,641 pounds valued at $994,746.
The entire quantity was donated by the government to the International Emergency
Children's Fund.
Effect The disposal of the government-held stocks was through non-commercial
channels. The product is not now under price support,
4. APPLES
Authorization -Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1949 as amended. P. C. 4712,
13 September, 1949. P.C. 1780 and P.C. 1781, 12 April, 1950.
Circumstances - Due to the loss of overseas markets, resulting from currency
difficulties abroad, it was considered desirable to assist Canadian apple
growers in finding an export outlet for fresh apples and to supplement returns
received by growers.
Extent and Nature - Direct assistance in the form of an export subsidy applied
to about 2 million bushels out of a total crop of 17.5 million bushels. The
total cost of these 2 million bushels amounted to $3 million which was shared
equally by the British and Canadian governments.
Cost - In addition to the cost of $1.5 million, grants to growers amounted to
$2.5 million making a total cost to the government of $4 million for the 1949
crop of apples. The value of the 1949 Canadian apple crop is estimated at
$20.3 million.
Effect - The program had the direct effect of moving these apples to the United
Kingdom market,
5, HONEY
Authorization - Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, P.C. 1789, 7 April 1949.
Circumstances - The puprose of the measure was to prevent a sharp decline in
prices which would have occurred because of a surplus of honey arising from a
large crop in 1948 and the reduction in overseas export outlets.
Extent and Nature - The government announced April 9, 1949 that it would purchase
up to July 31, 1949 five million pounds of honey produced in 1948. Purchases were
confined to bulk containers in car lot quantities at a price of 14 cents a pound
basis White No, 1 grade.
Cost - Total purchases by the Government amounted to 3,002,346 pounds at an outlay
to the Treasury of $369,252. Export sales from January 1 to June 30, 1950
amounted to 102,000 pounds on which the government recovered $8,731. Total
production of honey in Canada in 1948 amounted to 45 million pounds with a farm
value estimated at $9.3 million, The 1949 crop of honey which fell to 33.2
million pounds, valued at $5.2 million, is not under price support and due to the
short crop it is expected that Board holdings of white honey will be disposed of
in the domestic market, without loss.
Effecta - A subsidy is involved in export sales which have returned 3 to 4 cents.
a pound less than the purchase price. Exports which varied between 5 and 10
million pounds before the war dropped to 29,000 pounds in 1949.
II. SUBSIDIES GRANTED OR MAINTANED ON MINERAL PRODUCTS
1. COAL FREIGHTSUBVENTIONS
Authorization - Dominion Coal Board Act, 1947, P.C. 5896 dated 23 December 1948. GATT/CP/58/Add. 14
Page 6.
Circumstances - This form of assistance, which has been maintained in varying
degrees during the last twenty-three years, has arisen from the geographical
position of the Canadian coal fields in relation to the major Canadian coal
markets. The aid Was designed to assist the movement of Canadian coal to
some portions of central Canada by equalizing the laid-down costs of Canadian
coal with United States coal.
Extent and Nature - There is a wide variety in the subventions designed to
assist Canadian coal movements. With only one exception they are all designed
to place Nova Scotia, New Brunsiwick, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
coal on the markets of Ontario and Quebec in Competition with imported coal.
The one exception is the subvention on Alberta and British Columbia coal
moved to Manitoba for railway use only.
Cost - The total cost of these subventions in the calendar year 1949 amounted
to $3,401,852 and the total coal moved under subvention amounted to 2.4 million
tons. In 1949 the total Canadian production of coal amounted to 19 million
tons.
Effect - It is likely that in the absence of the subvention very little of the
coal produced in the Maritime Provinces or Western Canada would have moved to
Central Canada, Hence it apperars that the subvention reduced Canadian demand
for imported coal by around 2 million tons in 1949,
2. COAL EXPORT SUBSIDY
Authorization Dominion Coal Board Act and P.C. 1094 dated 15 March 1949,
Circumstances This subsidy was provided to assist the coal producers of
British Columbia and Alberta to find markets elsewhere than in Canada, since
they are located so far from the major markets of central Canada. It provides
a subsidy on coal exported to allcountries other than the United States or
its territorial possessions or used as fuel for ships'stores.
Extent and Nature - This subsidy provides a payment of up to $1.00 per ton on
Alberta and British Columbia coal exported from Canadian seaports.
Cost - In 1949 the export of 36,170 tons of coal was subsidized in this way at
a cost of $29,893. In the same period total Canadian production of coal amounted
to 19 million tons.
Effect - In 1949 total Canadian exports of' coal amounted to 432, 000 tons. It is
not possible to estimate with any precision the effect of the subsidy on exports.
Since the amount of' the subsidy paid is quite small in relation to the price it
is likely that most; if not all, of the quantity exported would have moved
without the subsidy.
.3 COKE BOUNTY
Authorization - Coke Bounty Act, 1950 (See para,2 under Legislation Part III.)
Circumstances - This subsidy provides that any iron and steel producer not
entitled to a draw-back on imported coal. may be granted a subsidy on the coal
of Canadian origin which he converts into coke. It was designed to assist those
iron and steel producers who, because of their geographical position, are not
able to utilize lower priced imported coal for coking. It thus reduces the
cost differentials between various Canadian primary steel producers. GATT/CP/58/Add. 14
Page 7
Extent and Nature -This subsidy amounts to 49,5 cents per ton of Canadian
coal used by priary iron and steel producers for converting into coke.
Cost - In 1949 the subsidy was paid on 740,288 tons of coal at a cost of
$366,443.
Effect - This subsidy has little effect on Canadian foreign trade. Those
companies receiving the subsidy would not be able to use imported coal for
coking purposes because of geographical location, It is possible that the
subsidy., by lowering costs increases Canadian exports of primary iron and
steel, However these exports amounted in 1949 to only 250,000 tons whereas
total production amounted to 3,2 million tons,
4. STEEL FREIGHT SUBVENTION
Authorization - Appropriation Act, No.7, 1949 and P. C, 2105 dated 29 May 1947.
Circumstances This subsidy which is designed to maintain capacity production
in the Canadian iron and steel industry arose because of the unequal distribu-
tion of primary capacity and finishing capacity, The subsidy facilitates the
movement of primary steel (ingots, billets, blooms and slabs) from those mills
unable to process it to other mills where there is excess finishing capacity.
Extent and Nature - Total freight charges on the movement of primary steel to
finishing mills are paid under this subvention.
Cost - The payments under this subsidy in the year ending 31 March 1950 amounted
to $1,804,440.
Effect - It is estimated that through this subsidy an additional 200, 000 tons
of domestic finished steel are made available annually. This compares with a
total Canadian production of 3.2 zillion tons and imports of 1.2 million tons.
It is possible that in the absence of this subvention all of the steel movements
involved would not have taken place. Hence the subvention probably reduces Ca-
nadian demand for imported steel by a small amount. It may also result indi-
rectly in a small increase of exports.
STEEP ROCK IRON MINES ORE EREIGHT SUBSIDY
Authorization - P.C. 8423 dated 18 September 1942 and continued by annual appro-
priation acts.
Circumstances - In order to guarantee domestic supplies and to stimulate iron
ore production when wartime demand was very great, it was decided to assist
the shipment of ore produced by development of a new ore body located at Steep
Rock near Atikokans Ontario.
Nature and Extent - In consideration of the setting of a special reduced rate by
the C.N.R. on ore moving from Steep Rock to Port Arthur, Ontario, the Government
agreed to pay 20¢ per gross ton on the first 5,000,000 gross tons of ore handled.
Shipments to the end of the 1949 shipping season totalled 4,354,673,98 gross tons,
The balance is expected to be shipped during the 1950 season and it is not the
intention of the government to renew or extend the subsidy.
Cost Subsidy payments in 1949-50 totalled $226,419.33 and $129,066,00 has been
appropriated to cover cost of concluding the arrangement in 1950-51.
Effect The subsidy no doubt was of substantial encouragement in expediting
development of the Steep Rock orebody and bringing it to the production stage.
Its exact effect, however, cannot well be estimated as it seems most prabable that
an orebody of this size and richness would have warranted development in any case.
The bulk of the ore produced has been exported to the United States. |
GATT Library | xw910vg7069 | Subsidies. Notification required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contractting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Communication from the Government of France | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.16 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xw910vg7069 | xw910vg7069_90300229.xml | GATT_141 | 937 | 6,001 | RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATTI/CP/58/Add. 16
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 13 October 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIRICATIOR REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH 1950
Communication from the Government of France
" 6 October 1950
article XVI of the. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides
that, if any contrating party grants any subsidy which operates to increase
exports or to reduce imports, it shall notify the Contractcing Parties of the
extent and nature of th subsidization. Though the French Government is of
the opinion that the subsidies it grants do not fall within the categories
referred to in Article XVI, it wishes, however, to notify the Contracting
Parties of the measures concerned that the Contracting Parties may be in a
position to form an opinion in full cognizance of the cas. Such is the
object of the annexed note that l have the honour hereby to treatmit." L
GATT/CP/58/Add.16 Page 2 T
Ej. subsidies granted on an inaividual tasis and in coccasional
cases to agricultural preducers whose crops have been destroyed by some
suosiaics graneed, as is the case in most ocuntries, with
a view to :7. -1. vechical progress and research in the agricultural
and industrial domeins, the French Government grants directly or industrectaly
of active to producers only in a numèr of limited cases listed
and described below. 1--
Price X apply to some products the procurement on which is
to meet in needs, or the market in which
was organization long before, the war within the general fra..work of the
economic policy of the country; with respects to other products
which con-stribute generally an important is not unique cources of cosperity
for one
particular region and which it has not separed neccssary to protect by
of custons duties, direct financial support, C ?A called
" u -L:; o, i "D o country", is graneed by the public sushorities.
Those are H forms of to French production
which, for reasons explained further in this documents, do not seem to
fall within the category of subsituties in Article XVI of the
General Agreement on Traiffa and Trade, but which the French Government,
however, has it necessary to bring to the attention of the Con-
I. WHICH A PRICE GUA IS GIVEN BY THE STATE A. Principle of the Price Fartic
A decree this with respect to
commo1 - (wh , -i-, r o II.:), the basis on which
price will be fixed for four l crey years standard yield, cost fectors
the amount of the various
Every year a fixes the price of the products
for the years up to I inducling, 1931/32.
1) The assisttance a with a view to lowering the price of some
categories of imported coal hould mentioned separtedly .,s only
ad memorian as such is being elimiated. GATT/CP/58/Add. 16
2. Authorisation: Dcree of 30 April 1946 sub' -iquently amended by Decrees
of 23 Frebruary , .L and 1st December 1949.
3. Alchohol
Authorisation: Article XXVI of the Law of 1st August 1924 laying down
4. Chicory
Authorisation and determination method: Every year a Departmental Order
fixes the price or LIcory; the determination method consists in apply-
ing a certain coefficient to the price of bUcroot.
The market for the 4 ahove mentioned products is organised by the
Sstate and therefore price guarantees are an esssential factor supple-
menting the arrangement.
5. Oil Seeds
Authorisation: Decree of 25 July 1947.
Determination method: The price of oilsseeds iss determied on the basis
of the price of coleseed which depends on the price fixed for wheat by
virtue of the relevant decree promulgated every year.
Effect: Specifications relating to use of oilseeds are ,.cded to price
guarantees; the effect of these meaures is to maintain in France a
satisfactory level of production to sutisfy the minimum neeas of the
metropolitan territory.
6. Milk
Authorisation: Decree of 23 February and 27 September 1948 and of 1C
September 1949.
Determination method: Under the above-mentioned legislation the price
for milk is determined on the basis of the geographical location of
Effect: The effect of his ;t .~r' :L_ U to :.I oLra, conditions on the
national market t 1i' C ~ more specifically to keep price ffjO8 (Lw. rences, as
between various , o. O..uction U1 '"O.:'.', within a l i a;.- :OnIle limit's.
II. IJ.uaUf.;O C.. 1.1i.11 J' T. .. LJ>:UL AISISTANCE IS GRAQ4IkiV.YAD BY
1. P L~ *~,
Authorisation: Law of 1. September 1943 instituting a vl Uk.li l.;til 'nd.
Circumtances: The rescurces of the of Lhc u 1.o .t oi it possible to further the
production of a number of commodities (fl , ? silk and hemp) for which this
form of subsidy is . Ll , t1 4 ..\ . - I '., I C}(it) 1', 22 .:) f±C! .im) , the .subsidy was
188 sLih (,UCL>. 0 i tA( \'O..-..~ to :111'l t (>)r l c 222 rii Ut 0: I': LC 2)0.L t:l ii.; 'O L b.I r l
Io.1'' O;.''S
oh s '"ich 1 "Co I atuI. V; U.yo ).~ O r 0 JrO. 0 o '0200' i tY C07 tL 1
As regards silk, the subsidy '01,ly J.ims at insuring the ±: il ICC
of this production which could not be carried on without protection and GATT T/CP/58/Add. 16
Page 4
which is highly --:ztial for a region otherwise very poor.
Effect: The above-mentiinl'liOinc. subsidies are not likely to operate to
reduce imports substantially as the national production of these
commodities is very limited. The consequences on exports also appear |
GATT Library | fq085hd2820 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, June 15, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) | 15/06/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.1 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fq085hd2820 | fq085hd2820_90300214.xml | GATT_141 | 275 | 1,790 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.
15 June 1950
ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH/FRENCH
SUBSIDIES
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING
PARTIES OF 2 MARCH, 1950
By the Decision of 2 March 1950 contracting parties
were asked to submit notifications of subsidization measures
in accordance with the requirements of Article XVI Such
notifications are due not later than 1 August 1950.
The only notification thus far received is that of the
Government of the United States which has been distributed
in GATT/CP/58/Add.1 .
By letter dated 22 May, the Government of Southern
Rhodesia has advised that "Southern Rhodesia does not at
present grant or maintain any subsidy which, in terms of
Article XVI, operates directly or indirectly either to
increase exports or to reduce imports".
SUBVENTI ONS
NOTIFICATIONS REQUISES AUX TERMES DE L'ARTICLE XVI
ET DE LA DECISION DES PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
EN DATE DU 2 MARS 1950
Par la Decision du 2 mars 1950, les parties contractantes
ont ete requises, conformement aux dispositions de l'article
XVI, de notifier toutes measures de subvention qu'elles appli-
quent. Ces renseignements doivent etre fournis le ler aout
1950 au plus tard.
La seule notification qui ait ete reque jusqu'ici est
cell du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis distribuee sous la
cote GATT/CP/58/Add.1 .
Le Gouvernement de la Rhodesie du Sud, dans une lettre
date du 22 mai, a fait savoir que "la Rhodesie du Sud, actu-
element, n'accorde ni ne maintient aucune mesure de subvention
qui, aux termes de l'article XVI, ait pour effet, directement
ou indirectement, d'accroitre les exportptions ou de reduire
les importations. |
GATT Library | wr118vb8062 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 4, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 04/08/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.5 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wr118vb8062 | wr118vb8062_90300217.xml | GATT_141 | 228 | 1,443 | ACTION
RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add. 5
TARIFFS AND TRADE 4 August 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF.
2 MARCH 1950
The Decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950
required each contracting party which grants or maintains sub-
sidies, such as those described in Article XVI, to submit
notification to the Contracting Parties not later than 1 August.
The notifications thus far received, namely from the
United States of America, the Union of South Africa and Belgium,
have been distributed in Addenda 1, 3 and 4. A statement by the
United Kingdom is in course of preparation. The Governments of
Ceylon and Luxembourg have advised that they do not at present
grant or maintain any such subsidies, and, as advised in
GATT/CP/58 and Addendum 2, the same, applies to New Zealand and
Southern Rhodesia.
If any other contracting party grants or maintains a
subsidy which should be notified under Article XVI, the
Executive Secretary should be advised by cable not later than
31 August and the notification, with details, should be sub-
mitted as soon as possible thereafter. Any contracting party
which has not sent such advice will be recorded in the
Secretariat's report as not maintaining subsidies on 1 August
1950. |
GATT Library | rt004fw4327 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 10, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/08/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.6 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rt004fw4327 | rt004fw4327_90300218.xml | GATT_141 | 428 | 2,664 | ACTION
RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.6
TARIFFS AND TRADE 10 August 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
2 MARCH 1950
The Government of Czechoslovakia has advised that it
"does not grant or maintain any subsidy which operates directly
or indirectly either to increase exports or to reduce imports."
The Government of Norway has advised that it "does not grant
or maintain any subsidy which is subject to notification under
Article XVI."
The Government of Pakistan has advised that it has "no
subsidies to report at present."
The following communication, dated 31 July 1950, has been
received from the Government of Finland:
"There is a law in Finland authorizing the Government to
guarantee minimum prices for seeds of all sorts of grass.
The purpose of this law is to secure a sufficient supply of
domestic seeds, This is necessary because of the risk which
always is connected with using seeds grown on more southern
latitudes in a country like Finland where the climate is hard.
Already since the twenties a stipulation has been included in
Finland's trade agreements giving her the right to forbid the
import of such seeds of agricultural plants which, on account
of their origin, are not deemed to thrive in Finland.
"The number of sheep in Finland is small. In order to
make safe the income of the people who raise sheep the
Government pays a subsidy to the industry equal to the
difference between the higher price of the domestic wool and
the lower price of the wool imported from abroad. The industry
is required to buy all domestic wool coming on the market. The
aforementioned regulations are of no practical importance to
the foreign trade as a whole. GATT/CP/58/Add. 6
Page 2
"Before the war Finland exported relatively large quantities
of butter, cheese, eggs and meat. At present cheese is the
only dairy product which is exported regularly. The cheese
price is guaranteed but an exporter who secures a higher price
for the cheese on the foreign market than the guaranteed price
is under obligation to use the balance to his credit for
reimbursing to the Government the-subsidies he might have
received on an earlier occasion from the Government when the
price obtainable on foreign markets was lower than the guaranteed
price.
"As regards grain production Finland is not selfsufficient.
"No subsidies are paid for manufactured products, On the
contrary, there are fixed maximum prices for many of them." |
GATT Library | jh873nf6262 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the contracting parties of 2 March 1950. : Addendum to Note by the Executive Secretary | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 29, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/26/Add.1 and GATT/CP.5/14-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jh873nf6262 | jh873nf6262_90330109.xml | GATT_141 | 141 | 845 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.5/26/Add.1
29 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
& FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Se ssion
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI
AND BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIED OF 2 MARCH 1950
Addendum to Note by the Executive Secretary
The names of Brazil, Dominican and Haiti should be transfered
from paragraph 4 to paragraph 3.
PARTIES CONTRACTING
Cinquième Session.
S U B V E N I O N S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUISES EN VERTU DE L'ARTICLE XVI
ET DE LA DECISION DES PARTIES CONTRACTANES EN
DARE DU 2 MAED 1950
Addendum à la Note du Secrétaire exécutif
Les noms du Brésil, de la République Dominicaine et d 'Haiti doivent
etre transférés du paragraphe 4 au paragraphe 3. |
GATT Library | jh300hy3786 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Motification by Cuba | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 29, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.15 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jh300hy3786 | jh300hy3786_90300228.xml | GATT_141 | 654 | 4,257 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add. 15
TARIFFS AND TRADE 29 September 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY THE DECISION
OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH 1950
Motification by Cuba
LEGAL BASES
The existing subsidy to the textile industry act present in force
in the Republic of Cuba was instituted by virtue of Presidential Decrces
Nos.1093 and 1005 of 1949, of which the former was subsequently amended by
Presidential Decree No.2461 of 1950. Under Decree No.1093 of 1949 it be-
came compulsory to affix to any material imported or domestically produced
identification stamps of six centavos each on the basis of one stamp per
peso or fraction thereof, depending on the value of the merchandise.
The general rule mentioned above applicable to all textile
materials includes one exception relating to sacks imported or domestically
produced for the sole purpose of containing national agricultural products.
B. METHOD OF ADMINISTRATION AND OF ALLOCATION
The monies levied, by means of the identification stamps affixed
to imported or domestically produced material as indicated above are paid
through the Direccion General de Contabilidad and the Tesoreria General de la
Republic a of the Ministry of Economic Affairs into a special fund called
"FONDO TEXTIL DE ANTICIPCS REINTEGRABLES" (Textile Fund of Reimbursable Ad-
vances), the said monies being placed at the disposal of an independent
equalisation body set up under the Ministry of Labour whose task it is to
allocate them to the national textile industry in conformity with the rules
Laid down in Presidential Decree No.1005 of 1949 which governs the operation
of the so-called "FONDO TEXTIL DE ANTICIPOS REINTEGRABLES"; the Governing
Body (Consejo de Administracion) of the Fund is composed of Government repre-
sentatives, domestic textile manufacturers, temtile importers and labour
representatives.
The Governing Body is empowered to examine and determine cases in
which a subsidy has to be granted to textile manufacturers and to determine the
amount of equitable economic assistance to be given, taking into account the
cost of labour and the resulting reduction thereof which is necessary to achieve
competitive prices on the rational market for the commmodity an question.
Another purpose of this subsidy is to enable manufacturers to reduce
production costs through the elimirnation of unnecessary labour, the Fund in such
a case granting the displaced workers reasonable benefits which, though they do
not represent the total amount of their wages. enable them to maintain a decent
standard of living until the economic situation of the industry enables them to
be re-absorbed in their normal field of activities or to find. empolyment in other
branches of national production.
Finally, the subsidy also operates as a buffer economic measure in
cases when, owing to the market being saturated, national textiles manufacturers
have to reduce or to stop normal production during a reasonable period in order
to dispose of accumulated stocks. In such cases, the workers concerned receive
from the Fund adequate grants to maintain a purchasing power in accordance with
their standard of living. GATT/CP/58/Add.15
page 2.
C. RESULTS MITHERTO ACHIEVED
Though the textile subsidy, operated as indicated above, has
not solved all the problems which the national textile industry is meeting,
it has nevertheless enabled this industry to overcome the serious economic
crisis which affected it during the first half of the year 1949 and which
resulted in the closing down of nearly all the nanufactures and in their
werkers being subsequently displaced. At present, this measure promulgated
by the Government of Cuba as an emergency measure under the General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and has enabled the textile industry to carry on in
spite of the low level of tariff protection which it onjoys, in the hope
that once it has obtained adequate tariff protection it con achieve its
natural development on a more firm and fina basis.
Havana, 30 August 1950.
_ ,. _R |
GATT Library | vb142hs8078 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by Australia | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 8, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.11 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vb142hs8078 | vb142hs8078_90300223.xml | GATT_141 | 1,400 | 8,947 | RESTRICTED
- GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.11
TARIFFS AND TRADE 8 September 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY
THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIESOF
2 MARCH 1950
Notification by Australia
In accordance with the decision taken by the Contracting
Parties at the Eleventh meeting on 2nd March 1950, the following
report is submitted on subsidies, including any form of income
or price support, which operates directly or indirectly to
increase exports of any product from, or to reduce imports of
any product into Australia.
I. Sulphate of Ammonia
A subsidy not exceeding in total an amount of £500,000 for
the year 1950/51 is at present paid on sulphate of ammonia as a
means of assistance to certain agricultural industries.
Although the actual amount of subsidy has been varied since the
Fourth Session of the Contracting Parties, the principles of
the subsidisation, and the estimated effects, remain as set
out in document GATT/CP.4/39 circulated at the Fourth Session.
II. Tractors
Under the Tractor Bounty Act 1939-47, bounty is payable to
tractors produced in accordance with prescribed conditions for
use within Australia. The rate of bounty ranges from £32 to
£72 per tractor according to the brake horse-power ,of the
engine.
The current Legislation expires in October next and the
question of continued assistance to the tractor industry has
been referred to the Australian Tariff Board for enquiry and
report.
This bounty may have had some indirect effects on
imports but it is most difficult to assess then, and certainly
they would be very slight. In the four complete post-war
years for which statistics are available, Australia has
imported ,42,000 tractors as against 2,000 tractors locally
produced and on which bounty has been paid. But for the
world wide shortage of tractors Australian imports would have
reached a substantially higher level.
III. Sugar and certain products made from raw cane sugar
Measures are in force regulating the production and
marketing of cane sugar and certain products made from cane
sugar. The measures represent a system for the stabilisation GATT/CP/58/Add .11
Page 2.
of the return to domestic producers of a primary commodity, as
distinct from a subsidization measure which operates to maintain
or increase exports and to reduce or prevent an increase in
imports.
The measures are based on an agreement between the
Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government
of the State of Queensland under which the latter government
agrees to take such action as is necessary effectively to control
the total production of raw sugar cane, and to acquire all raw
sugar manufactured from sugar cane grown in Queensland and
New South Wales.
The agreement requires the Government of State of
Queensland to make the following products of sugar available for
sale and delivery to wholesalers and the sugar using industries
at specified distribution centres throughout the Commonwealth
of Australia at prescribed prices.
Refined Sugar lA Grade.
Refined Sugar of LXD Grade,
Other Grades of Refined Sugar.
Golden Syrup and Treacle..
Mill-White Sugar.
First Quality Mill Sugar.
The prescribed prices include provision for the conditional
grant of a price rebate of £2/4/- per ton in respect of
Australian refined sugar used in the manufacture of fruit
products..
If the Australian equivalent of the world parity price for
sugar is less than the prescribed selling price of Australian
sugar the Agreement provides for the grant of a price rebate on
the sugar contents of manufactured goods exported from Australia.
For the past nine years the Australian equivalent of the world
parity price has been higher, than the domestic price and
therefore no price rebates have been granted except the rebates
provided for in respect of manufactured fruit products. The cost
of any rebates, is borne by the Australian sugar producing
industry from the pool of receipts administered by the
Queensland Sugar Board. Since 1932 the Government of the
Commonwealth has assisted in the administration of rebate
provisions of the Agreement but not on the basis of providing
funds for their grant.
The administration of.the agreement involves the maintenance
of regulations which provide that sugar may not be imported
into Australia except with the consent of the Minister for
Trade and Customs.
IV. Farm Products
Australia maintains price support schemes for dairy
products, and wheat. These are essentially sohemes for the
stabilization of returns to domestic producers and under certain
conditions could affect imports and exports both directly and
indirectly. However at the present time the Australian GATT/CP/58/Add.11
Page 3.
domestic price levels for all of these commoditics are
substantially below world prices and these schemes would not at
the present time affect imports or exports in the way envisaged
in Article XVI.
(a) Wheat: Under the Wheat Stabilization Scheme growers
receive a guaranteed price based on production costs
for all wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board.
Prior to 1st December l949, the guaranteed price was
6/8d. per bushel f.o.r, ports. Following a rise in
Production costs to 7/Id. per bushel the Commonwealth
Government docided to meet the increased cost of 5d. by
a subsidy, on all domestically consumed whcat to
avoid the increased cost being passed on to local
consumers, particularly flour millers and stock and
poultry feeders.
The estimated cost of this subsidy for the season
1st December 1949 to 30th November 1950 is £1,250,000.
The domestic price is still substantially below the
export price and the subsidy does not operate to
incrcase exports or reduce imports.
(b) Dairy products: The Commonwealth Government pays a
subsidy on milk or cream used in the manufacturer of
butter, cheeso, dried milk (not being skimmed milk
powder) condensed milk or concentrated milk for
domestic consumption, The rate of subsidy for the
year ending 30 June, 1950 was 9d. per lb. commercial
butter, 4½d, por lb. cheese and 2½d. per lb. commercial
butter basis on the butter fat content of the
remaining products.
Returns to dairy farmers on milk used for manufacturing
purposes have been guaranteed by the Commonwealth
Government until 30th June, 1952, subject to annual
adjustments according to costs of production. On
that portion of dairy products sold for domestic con-
sumption the price has been hold by price control
below the guaranteed return to the farmer. The
difference is paid by the Commonwealth Government in
the form of a subsidy at the rates mentioned above.
V. Ship Building
For sone time the ship building industry has been assisted
by the Government meeting the approximate, difference in cost
between Australian and Unitewd Kingdom ship building costs,
provided that such assistance did not exceed 25% of the
Australian cost. In actual practice the assistance where given
has been less than the 25% maximmum.
The Commonwealth Governtment recently announced its
intention to combine a measure of financial assistance to the
ship building industry with import control over vessels of any
origin. The final details of the new procedure for assistance
have not yet been determined. The general objective of the
measure is to ensure that all Australian ship owners use some
proportion of Australian built vessels. GATT/CP/58/Add.11
Page 4.
This scheme of assistance has been developed solely
for the purpose of maintaining adequate ship building and ship
repair facilities in Australia in accordance with overall
defence requirements. Although combined financial assistance
and import control will restrict imports of vessels it is not
practicable to attempt any assessment of the effects of the
scheme until final details have been approved and put into
operation .
VI. Flax
The Australian Government recently approved payment
of a subsidy to the Flax weaving industry. The subsidy will
be paid in respect of all scutched fibre of Australian origin
used by weavers on the basis of £A.60 per ton for C. Grade
tank retted flax, proportionate adjustments being made for
other grades. This decision is based on a recommendation of
the Australian Tariff Board following an investigation of the
flax spinning and weaving industry.
Final details of the payment of the subsidy are still
being dotermined and the subsidy is in fact not yet in
operation. It is therefore not practicable to indicate at
this stage to what extent, if any, the subsidy would affect
imports. However, the Australian Government has directed that
it be reviewed at the end of twelve months and that in any
event it be limited to a period not exceeding two years.
_ w _i |
GATT Library | tw626tm9953 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by Belgium | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 3, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/08/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.4 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tw626tm9953 | tw626tm9953_90300216.xml | GATT_141 | 1,287 | 7,868 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.4
3 August 1950
ENGLISH
Original: FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U S S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY
THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH 1950
Notification by Belgium
of
of
or
.This report has been prepared pursuant to the obligation under Article XVI
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to notify the CONTRACTING PARTIES
any subsidies, including any form of income or price support, leading directly
indirectly to increased exports or to reduced imports.
The report is presented in three parts. Part I discusses the legislation
now in force concerning subsidies for certain farm products, Part II deals with
the price support programme for certain industrial products and Part III with
the system of State aid for Congolese timber exports.
I. Subsidies for certain farm products
Pursuant to the Regent's Decree of 17 May 1950, industries producing
certain types of cheese, milk powders and milk concentrates made with Belgian
milk are granted temporary subsidies from 15 May to 30 September 1950.
Under a Ministerial Decree of 22 May 1950, the amounts of the subsidies
were fixed as follows: GATT/CP/58/Add. 4
page 2
1st quality
per kg.
2nd quality
per kg.
Hard cheeses - 45%(1) 12 F.(2) 11 F. 9 F.
'' " 40%(1) 10F. 9 F. 7 F.
Matured Herve 6 F. 5 F. 3 F.
Whole milk powders 7.5 F. 6.5 F. 4.5 F.
Skim milk powders:
Condensed whole milk
concentrates:
Evaporated whole milk
concentrates:
4 F. per kg. for a quota of 3,000 tons
2.5 F. per kg.
2.25 F. "
The aim of the subsidies is not to promote exports of the subsidized
products, but to facilitate the utilization of excess milk supplies during the
summer peak over-production period. Since these supplies cannot be consumed,
they must be processed, and this can only be done by reducing the prices of
home-manufactured products to the level of import prices by means of subsidies.
As regards the effect of these measures on total imports, it would be
premature to attempt any estimate, Although Belgium will continue to import
the products in question, despite the granting of subsidies, her imports might,
in theory, be reduced by an amount equal to the additional quantities produced
as a result of these subsidies,
In practice, however, account must also be taken of possible changes in
consumption. In the case of cheese, for example, the introduction of the
(1) Minimum percentage of fats
(2) F. - Belgian francs.
superfine
quality
per kg. GATT/CP/58/Add .4
page 3
subsidy has been accompanied by the abolition of an import duty, and the selling
price of cheese has dropped appreciably on the home market. Since this
reduction in price is calculated to increase consumption it is not unlikely
that the effect of the subsidies on total imports will be mitigated, or even
entirely offset, by an increase in consumption.
II. Subtsidies for certain industrial products
Legislation, now in force provides for a subsidy for the coal and gas
industries. The subsidies granted are not, however; intended to increase
exports or to reduce imports of the products of those industries, but merely
to compensete for the loss sustained by the producers as a result of governmental
price policy in these fields,
It should be pointed out that the coal industry was one of the Government's
main concerns after the Liberation.
Coal production. stood at less than 50% of its pre-war level since the
mining industry was suffering from a complete lack of modernization and, in
particular, an acute shortage of skilled labour. Production had to be raised
at all costs in order to enable the various industries to fuvtion and the
country to recover.
The employment of prisoners of war, their later replacement by foreign
labour and active propaganda on behalf of the mines and the miners resulted in
a rapid inccreases of the volume of production; but this was achieved at the
expense of efficiency and, therefore, of production costs. The consequent
increase in selling prices was bound to entail a general rise in prices and the
cost of living,
It was for these reasons that the authorities fixed the selling price of
coal at a level that was tolerable for the consumer industries. balancing this
by a system of subsidies and compensation designed to allow the collieries as a
whole to continue production without loss.
The method, of putting this policy into effuct have varied from time to GATT/CP/58/Add .4
page 4
time. At present, no subsidies remain except those for certain minus with
high production costs. For instance, collieries with a loss of more than
10 francs per ton during the period under consideration are paid a subsidy
equal to the loss per ton less 10 francs. The ceiling for this, subsidy is
fixed at 165 francs and reduced by 5% every month as from 1 October .1949 so as
to reach zero after 20 months.
The policy of subsidising the collieries is justified by the fact that it
has no other raison d'être than a production cost which is too high, and the
need, from a striatly domestic viewpoint, of maintaining a selling price that
is tolerable for Belgian industry.
It is no exaggeration to say that the system has had no influence on the
volume of exports or imports, since the current price level remains very
considerably higher than that in other coal producing countries and since in
order to export, Belgian producers must accept substantial reductions in their
prices.
With regard to gas, the purpose of the subsidy is to compensate the loss
suffered by producers on the salt of a specific quantity of gas at a low price,
and to avoid the unfavourable effect of the increase in coal prices on the
cost of living for low income families.
III. Subsidies on certain -Congo woods
Order No. 52/348 of 19 November 1949 established an export bounty on
second and third class spawn woods. This bounty came into operation on 1
September 1949 and amounts to 400 francs per cubic metre of sawn wood exported
outside the countries adjacent to the Belgian Congo.
Wood produced in the form of railway sleepers is classed as sawn wood.
To qualify for the bounty, timber must:
1. Conform to certain provisions on timber exports (Order No. 41/131
of 14 April 1948, supplemented by Order No. 41/l82 of 29 May 1948); GATT/CP/58/Add .4
page 5
2. be dried by heat treatment; (1)
3. be chomically treated for protection against xylophagous
insects, rot and fungi; (1)
This measure was taken for the following reasons:
a to encourage timber producers to make the maximum use of logs
unexportable as a result of faults in felling; splits, cup-shake,
halo, etc.
b. to encourage the installation of drying plants and the chemical
treatment of woods easily, and often quickly, attacked by insects;
c. to increase the volume of exports of woods that are not generally
exported or are unexportable as a result of damage by insects and
thus to encourage the rational exploitation of the Congo forests,
which is too often limited to an unduly small range of species;
d. to place on the market woods which are of a uniform saleable
quality and which do not deteriorate in storage.
Amount of the Subsidy
For the third quarter of 1949 a sum of 1,200,000 francs was allocated in
the ordinary budget.
For 1950, a sum of 12,000,000 francs has been appropriated in the ordinary
budget.
(1) Woods produced in the form of railway sleepers need not be given
the treatment described in sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 if they are hard
woods considered immune from attack by xylophagous insects. |
GATT Library | cf718vr6298 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by India | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 1, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.8 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cf718vr6298 | cf718vr6298_90300220.xml | GATT_141 | 750 | 4,882 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP/58/Add43
TARIFFS AND TRADE 1 September 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY
THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
2 MARCH 1950
Notification by India
The following communication, dated 28 August, has been
received from the Government of India:
"Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade requires each contracting party to notify the Contracting
Parties of any subsidies, including any form of income or price
support, leading directly or indirectly to increased exports
or to reduced imports. The following paragraphs describe the
measures now operating in India which, broadly speaking may
come under the purview of this Article.
"Strictly speaking, subsidies are being granted by the
Government of India only on two indigenous industrial products
Soda Ash and Aluminium, Both these subsidies were granted
on the recommendation of the Indian Tariff Board with a view to
protecting the Indian industries from extreme foreign compe-
tition. When the industries applied for protection, the
Indian Tariff Board, after thorough enquiry, came to the
conclusion that the import duty that would have to be imposed
to protect the industries effectively would entail a heavy
burden or the particular consumers. The Board, therefore,
recommended a combination of protective duty and subsidy to
enable the industry to face competition from imports of
cheaper foreign products. The two succeeding paragraphs
explain the schemes of subsidy as they are operating in
respect of these two industries.
"Soda Ash - A subsidy of Re.1/- per cwt. is payable on
Soda Ash sold from 22nd February, 1950 onwards, provided the
Government are satisfied that the companies actually sell soda
ash at or below the fair-selling price estimated by the Tariff
Board which is Rs.16.83 per cwt. The installed capacity of the
producers is 54,000 tons per annum as against an estimated
demand of 1,20,000 tens per annum. The present annual production
of Soda Ash in India is estimated at 48,000 tons. The difference
between demand and indigenous production is met by imports.
The subsidy is expected to be paid for three years in the first
instance.
"Aluminium - There are only two Aluminium producing concerns
in India and subsidies on aluminium produced by them are being
granted at the following rats - GATT/CP/53/Add.8
Page 2
Year Rates of subaidy in rupees per ton
Indian Aluminium Aluminium Corporation
Company
1949 - 50 330 (on sheets and (719 (on sheets and circles)
circus) (700 (on ingots)
1950-51 230 (on sheets and (610 (On sheets and circles)
circles) (825 (on ingots)
1951-52 130 (on sheets and (510 (on sheets and circles)
circles) (750 (on ingots)
The subsidy represents the difference between the fair selling
price of the products of the two manufacturers having regard
to their respective costs of production and the fair selling
price of similar imported articles, In this case also the
concession is to be allowed for three years in the first instance
and the subsidy would be largely met from the additional revenue
expected to be realized by the enhanced duties imposed on
aluminium ingots, sheets and circles over and above the import
duty of 30% ad valorem. The scheme started operating on 15th
May, 1949 The gradual decrease indicated in the rates of
subsidy mentioned in the table above is due to the anticipation
that with increasing efficiency and volume of production the
cost of production will gradually tend to decreased
"With a view to raising the production of major foodgrains,
jute, cotton and sugar to the level of internal requirements,
the Government of India are giving financial assistance either
directly or indirectly to the State Governments or other
parties to enable them to carry out plans of increased production,
and to provide them with an incentive for the purpose, Such
assistance is necessary because the State governmentss or other
parties concerned cannot meet the full expenditure on measures
necessary for increasing the production from their own resources.
The aim of the measures being taken is to make India less
dependent on imports for her foodgrains, cotton, and jute so
that the heavy strain which the very large imports of these
commodities put on her foreign exchange resources may be avoided.
Food subsidies or bonuses on procurement are given for the
specific purposes of protecting the consumer from high prices
and encouragin internal procurement, These special measures of
assistance are not, therefore, of the category of discriminatory
help to internal agriculture or industry." |
GATT Library | pf491pp4889 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by New Zealand | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 5, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/04/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pf491pp4889 | pf491pp4889_90300211.xml | GATT_141 | 133 | 898 | LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP/58 5 April 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH 195O
Notification by New Zealand
The Decision of 2 March 19050 of the Contracting Parties
(see GATT/CP.4/20) calls upon contracting parties which grant
or maintain subsidies such as those described in Article XVI
to submit notification, accompanied by certain information,
to the Contracting Parties not later than 1 August 1950.
A communication in this connection dated March 21, 1950
has been received from the Government of New Zealand advising
that "New Zealand does not grant or maintain any subsidy which
operates directly or indirectly either to increase exports or to
reduce imports". |
GATT Library | kk780hy0368 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by Sweden | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 14, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.12 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kk780hy0368 | kk780hy0368_90300224.xml | GATT_141 | 300 | 1,906 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.12
TARIFFS AND TRADE 14 September 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY
THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
2 MARCH 1950
Notification by Sweden
The following communication, dated 7 September 1950, has
been received from the Government of Sweden:
"With reference to document G&TT/CP/58/Add,5 and the
Ministry's telegram on August 31, I have the honour to
submit the following information on Swedish subsidies in
accordance with Article XVI.
"The subsidies actually in force in Sweden may be
divided in two groups .
1. Subsidies introduced in connection with the
general price regulations of agricultural products.
2. Subsidies introduced before or in connection with
the devaluation of the Swedish Crown (September 1949)
in order to neutralize the effect on Sweden's
domestic price level of price increases abroad.
"In both cases the subsidies do not work as a stimulus
for exports, nor are they so intended. Thus, to the extent
where subsidies exist to reduce the foreign price on the
Swedish market a special fee corresponding to the subsidy"
is charged when exporting the product in question.
"On the other hand it is difficult to determine with
sureness whether certain subsidies possibly may have an
effect of hampering imports. In the agricultural field
the Swedish prices are actually, even without subsidies,
lower than abroad, wherefore in this case the subsidies
can be said definitely not to have such influence on the
import trade. As to other commodities the subsidies now
in force will be suspended around the turn of the year or
in early 1951."
* ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - -- - -- -
^~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I S, FE~,7
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` l_ A _ |
GATT Library | wj629gk5024 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by the Government of Denmark | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 8, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/08/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.7 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wj629gk5024 | wj629gk5024_90300219.xml | GATT_141 | 450 | 2,820 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP/58/Add.7
8 August 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY
THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
2 MARCH 1950
Notification by the Government of Denmark
The following communication, dated 5 August 1950, has been
received from the Government of Denmark:
"This report has been prepared pursuant to the obligations
under Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
and to the Decision of the Contracting Parties of March 2, 1950.
Apart from the subsidization of the price of sugar for
household purposes, the Danish Government do not maintain any
subsidy covered by Article XVI.
Under the Danish sugar scheme which has been reported in
detail pursuant to Article XVIII:12, the Minister of Commerce,
Industry and Shipping is empowered to fix the sales price charged
by the sugar factories per kilo for refined sugar. Since 1940,
the price has been fixed at 41 øre per kilo, which is below the
present cost of production. This price, however, applies only
to sugar sold for household purposes. Industries using sugar
for raw material pay an additional price. This additional price
is fixed in consideration of the price of sugar on the world
market.
The subsidy needed for the maintenance of the price of sugar
for household purposes at the fixed level is paid to the sugar
factories partly out of the Treasury and partly by using that
part of the profits of the sugar factories including profits on
exports of sugar, which is deposited in a special fund belonging
to the Government. The household consumption of sugar in 1949
amounted to about 90,000 metric tons, and the subsidy paid out of
the Treasury amounted to about 30 million kroner. As a result of
a recent increase of sugar rations, the total household consump-
tion in 1950 is estimated at about 105,000 metric tons which will
involve a Government expenditure of about 27 million kroner.
The purpose of this subsizization is exclusively to assure that
the sugar consumption of the population can be bought at a low price.
In the new Act on the.Sugar Scheme the question of the maintenance
of the arrange ent has been left open. GATT/CP/58/Add.7
page 2
At present Danish production costs for sugar are
substantially below the world market price. Thus the
subsidization should not have serious effects upon imports
and exports of sugar.
In view of the information given above concerning
the nature and aims of the scheme, the Danish Government
finds it doubtful whether it is neccessary to report the
scheme under Article XVI of the GATT but it has nevertheless
been considered most appropriate to make such a report." |
GATT Library | fb575zj9697 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by the Netherlands | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 15, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 15/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.13 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fb575zj9697 | fb575zj9697_90300225.xml | GATT_141 | 860 | 5,700 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B GATT/CP/58/Add. 13
TARIFFS AND TRADE 15 September 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S.
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY THE
DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
Notification by the Netherlands
The Netherlands, the overseas parts of the Realm included,
do not at present grant or maintain any subsidy which, in the
terms of Article XVI, operates directly either to increase
exports or to reduce imports.
In the metropolitan territory, however, certain subsidies
are granted of which the indirect export-increasing effect
cannot be denied theoretically, though in practice that effect
is so small that the following survey of these subsidies is
given for the sake of completeness only.
Subsidies on consumers' goods.
In pursuance of the Government's wage and price policy
subsidies are paid on certain foodstuffs of which the cost of
production (or purchase price, in the case of imported goods)
is too high to be fully met by the price the average consumer
can afford to pay.
The total sum of these subsidies is estimated for 1950
at 242 million guilders. This sum amounts to about 1½ per
cent of the national income so that its export increasing
effect, if any, is very small.
The table below shows the subsidies granted for the main
articles:
Brown bread 800 gr. 4,9 cents
White bread 800 gr. 2,3 cents
Groats 1000 gr. 9,35 cents
Rolled oats 1000 gr. 8,9 cents
Sugar 1000 gr. 8,7 cents
Coffee 1000 gr. 400,-cents
Milk litre 2 ,5 cents
Margarine 1000 gr. 30, -cents
Cooking fat 1000 gr. 12,85 cents
These subsidies are paid out of a special fund
(Landbouwegalisatiefonds - Agricultural Equalization Fund).
This Fund, however, has been established primarily for the
purpose of price-equalization of agricultural products
(see below). GATT/CP/58/Add. 13
Page 2.
Subsidies on fodder
The sum of 242 million guilders mentioned above, comprises
49 million guilders for the subsidization of imported fodder
cereals and albumen fodder. The price-reducing and, consequently,
export-increasing-effect is, however, as far as possible offset
by the levying of an export-duty on eggs and bacon equivalent
to the estimated amount of the subsidy incorporated therein.
Price egualization for agricultural products
The domestic prices for agricultural products are sometimes
lower, somretimes higher than the prices which can be obtained
in the export-trade. The extra profits which could be made
in exporting the former are withheld and the amounts thus
raised are used to subsidize the export of the latter. This
system now operates for dairy-products.
All subsidies mentiomed are based on the Agricultural
Crisis Act 1933 (Landbouwcrisiswet) and the Food Order 1941
(Voedselvoorzieningsbesluit), under which the Minister of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fixes the amounts to be paid.
Coal equalization fund
Since the end of the war the price for coal on the home
market has been fixed at a level which 1 .es above the price
at which the domestic coal could be sold and below that of
coal from foreign sources. The extra profit of the Netherlands
mines is paid into a fund (Kolenegalisatiefonds) out of which
imported coal is subsidized. If the fund shows a deficit,
because the amount of the subsidies paid on imported coal
surpasses the extra profit paid into the fund by the Netherlands
mines, this deficit is covered by a state-subsidy.
It is clear that this syste; noither hampers imports nor
increases exports of coal. The fixing of the price of domestic
coal below the world-market level operates on a negligible
scale as an export subsidy on articles for the production of
which coal is used.
(Domestic and imported coal not entering the home-market
remain outside the scone of the fund.)
Peat
The production of peat is subsidized for social considera-
tions, viz. in order to avoid unemployment in an infertile part
of this country. The subsidy, which is paid out of the budget
of the Ministry of Social Affairs, amounts to no more than
250.000 guilders for 1950 and applies to peat for industrial
purposes only, not to peat used as a household fuel. The
subsidy is necessary because otherwise the industries now
using peat would shift to the cheaper coal. Moreover peat
hardly ever enters into international trade on account of-
its low value, which cannot bear the comparatively high cost
of transport. The subsidy consequently can hardly be considered
to come under the terms of Article XVI. GATT/CP/58/Add. 13
Page 3
B. OVERSEAS PARTS OF THE REALM
In New Guinea Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles no
subsidies are granted of which the indirect effect is to
increase exports or reduce imports.
The Surinam States, however, have now under consideration
a bill to authorize the country-ministers of Economic Affairs
and of Finance to grant export subsidies on goods, which they
may designate under conditions provided for in the bill. The
subsidy would not exceed one half of the loss suffered by the
devaluation in September 1949 of the currency of Surinam's
customers.
It is the intention to subsidize one or two products only.
As soon as the bill is passed, notice shall be given to the
Contracting Parties.
August 1950.
r ~ v > -
I |
GATT Library | zy833rh0080 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by the Netherlands. Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 18, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Corr.1 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zy833rh0080 | zy833rh0080_90300226.xml | GATT_141 | 60 | 386 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Corr.1
18 October 1950
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U E S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY THE
DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
2 MARCH1950
Notification by the Netherlands
CORRIGENDUM
Page 2, paragraph 2: Delete the words: "This system now operates
for dairy products." |
GATT Library | pg642xt1233 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by the Union of South Africa | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, July 25, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/07/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.3 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pg642xt1233 | pg642xt1233_90300215.xml | GATT_141 | 2,413 | 15,264 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP/58/Add.3
25 July 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OFTHE CONTRACTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH 1950
Notification by the Union of South Africa
The following communication, dated 17 July, 1950, has been
received from the Government of the Union of South Africa:
"In accordance with the provisions of Article XVI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Decision which was
taken by the CONTRACTING PARTIES on March 2nd, 1950, the Government
of the Union of South Africa have the honour to submit the follo-
wing information in respect of subsidies as well as income or price
support schedmes at present in operation in South Africa:-
A. STATE SUBSIDIES.
1. Subsidies paid by the Government of the Union of South
Africa must be voted by Parliament and all amounts involved are
reflected in the annual Estimates of Expenditure.
(i) Direct export subsidies.
2. At present no direct export subsidies are paid by the
State on any agricultural products. During the past few years
there has been only one instance that could be regarded as
falling within the category of export subsidies, viz. that in
respect of edible oils in 1947/48 and 1948/49.
3. The dislocation of international trade during the war
years resulted in a serious shortage of edible oils. For this
reason, and also because of the benoficial effects of groundnuts
on the soil, the Government of the Union of South Africa encou-
raged the cultivation of this crop, primarily by means of guaran-
teed prices to the producer. As a result, the production of
groundnuts, as well as other oil-bearing seeds, particularly
sunflower seed, was rapidly expanded and exceeded domestic requi-
rements during the two seasons mentioned above. To enable the
oil industry to take up the whole of the groundnut and sunflower -
seed crops, the Government undertook to purchase, at fiexed prices,
any oil surplus to domestic requirements during the 1947/48 and
1948/49 seasons. Approximately15,500 tons of oil were purchased
at about L139 per ton and exported at about L117 per ton. During
the same two seasons a subsidy was also Paid on oilcake to keep
down the price of feed mixtures. No subsidies are contemplated
in respect of the 1949/50 oil-seed: crops. Page 2.
(ii) -Subsidies on farming requisites.
4.Certain farming requisites, viz. bags and fertilisers,
are subsidised by the Government, primarily to keep down costs,
but in the case of fertilisers the object is also to encourage
their use.
5. These subsidies probably have little or no effect,
either direct or indirect, on the Union's foreign trade.
South Africa is an importer of bags and fertilisers, parti-
cularly the former, so that the use and consequently the
importation of these materials would if anything, be stimu-
lated by artificially lowering their domestic selling prices.
On the other hand, with the exception of fruit and wool,
hardly any of the products in the production and marketing of
which fertilisers and bags are used, are normally exported.
Moreover, for the major cereal crops prices are fixed, and
the lower cost of begs and fertilisers is taken into consi-
deration in determining these prices. The consumer thus
derives the main benefit therefrom and production is not
stimulated unduly as a result of thee subsidies.
(iii) Subsidies on foodstuffs.
6. The Government also subsidises certain foodstuffs,
viz. wheat, mealies, butter and margarine in order to keep
down the cost of living.
7. The Union of South Africa is a signatory to the
International Wheat Agreement and normally imports a very
substantial proportion of its wheat requirements. Since
the producers' prices for wheat in South Africa are still
well below the landed cost of imported wheat, and as no
restrictions are imposed on the use of wheat and wheaten
products, the subsidy would, if anything, tend to enhance
imports.
8. During the past eight or nine years mealies have
been imported or exported only spasmodically, the Union of
South Africa in most years barely producing sufficient for
its own requirements' On such quantities of mealies or
mealie products as are exported, at least the amount of
the Government subsidy is recovered.
9. In respect of butter, the Union of South Africa
at present produces barely Sufficient for its own requirements
and only negligible quantities have been supplied to neigh-
bouuring territories. Due to the continued world shortage
of butter the Union of South Africa has in recent years also
not imported supplies of this commodity.
10. The production of margarine in the Union is subject
to quotas, and very little has been exported. Such exports
as do occur, are not subsidiesed. GATT/CP/58/Add.3
Page 3.
B. SUBSIDIES PAID BY MARKETING BOARDS
11. Apart from the above State subsidies, which are
consumer subsidies in the main, instances of export subsi-
disation by one or other of the Marketing Boards established
under the Marketing Act (Act N° 26 of 1937, as amended) have
occurred in recent years, viz. in respect of tobacco and
raisins and, to a very minor extent, in respect of potatoes
and bacon and baconers.
(1) Tobacco.
12. The Union of South Africa is, on balance, an
importer of tobacco. During the war years serious shortages
developed and the producers prices fixed by the Tobacco
Board were gradually raised to stimulate local production.
Favourable prices, together with several exceptionally
favourable seasons in succession, led to a substantial
increase in production. As a result, there was an excessive
accumulation of certain grades of Virginia tobacco, and
the Tobacco Control Board, with the approval of the Minister
of Agriculture, consequently decided to subsidise the export
of these grades from its accumulated levy funds, which are
derived from a levy on leaf tobacco. The quantities exported
and the subsidies paid were as follows:-
Quantity (1.000 lb.) Subsidy.
1945/46 ......... 259 L 3,390
1946/47 ......... 301 L 1,958
1947/48 ......... 59 L 376
1948/49 .. . . 1,595 L 14, 923
1949/50 (provisional) 1,500 ?
Substantial quantities of tobacco, however, continue to be
imported into the Union from the Rhodesias for blending with
Union tobacco.
(ii) Raisins.
13. In terms of the Wine and Sprits Control Amendment
Act (N° 23 of 1940) the Kooperatiewe Wynbouers Vereniging
van Zuid-Afrika, Bpk. (the Co-operative Winegrowera Association
of South Africa, Ltd.) guarantees a minimum price for raisins
equivalent to the distilling-wine price. Thus, partly as a
result of the increase in wine and spirit prices during the
war years and subsequently, the prices of raisins in the Union
are relatively high, At the same time the Union produces a
surplus of raisins over domestic requirements and this is
exported at a loss by the Dried Fruit Board. To reimburse
itdelf the Board loads its domestic selling prices. For
the current season, this "loading" amounts to about c'ii, farthing
per lb. GATT/CP/5 8/Add .3
Page 4.
14. It should be pointed out, however, that the production
of dried vine fruits has declined from a peak of 13,000 to
14,000 tons in 1942/44, to about 10,000 tons and less in recent,
years. As the domestic consumption increased substantially
during the same period, exports have shown a substantial decline.
With the exception of currants; moreover, the prices of raisins
in the Union do not, on the whole, exceed the cost at which
imported raisins could be landed here.
15. During 1949 the production of baconers increased to
the point where local requirements were exceeded. consequently,
small quantities of bacon and frozen baconers were exported.
On the whole no losses were incurred on these exports. For a
limited period, nowever, the Director of Meat Supplies (a
statutory body) subsidised the railage on bacon for export from
inland factories. The subsidy paid amounted to to L178 on
117,000 lb. of bacon.
(iv) Potatoes.
16. Normally the Union produces more or less sufficient
potatoes for its own requirements. Production varies greatly,
however, and to stabilize prices to some extent the Potato
Board periodically operates an open buying scheme. Potatoes
purchased by the Board during periods of peak deliveries are
aither stored for sale during periods of scarcity or on occasion
exported. In general no losses are incurred on such exports.
On one occasion only, viz. in 1947, did the Board suffer a
loss of about L24,000 on 95,000 bags of potatoes sold to the
British Ministry of Food.
C. PRICE STABILISATION MEASURES
17. Apart from tobacco, dried fruit and potatoes,
marketing boards have also been established for the following
products:
1. Wheat, cats, barley and rye;
2. Mealies;
3.Butterfat, industrial milk, butter, cheese
and condensed milk;
4. Slaughter stock (cattle, sheep and pigs);
5. Citrus fruit;
6. Deciduous fruit;
7. Chicory root.
With the exception of deciduous fruit and potatoes,
fixed prices are determined for all these commodities, except,
of course, for the portion exported.
18. A major aim of these boards is to achieve a measure
of price stability for the products concerned. In pursuance
of this objects the domestic prices for the products concerned
have, in general, during the current inflationary period been GATT/CP/58/Add .3
Page 5.
maintained at levels lower, in varying degree, than those
ruling in most countries abroad. This has been true parti-
cularly of mealies, oats, barley, citrus fruit and chicory.
Dried fruit constitutes a notable exception, but conditions
in this industry have been complicated by the high prices
obtainable for fresh and preserved fruits and wine and
spirits, particularly on overseas markets.
19. It is evident, therefore that apart from the
instances dealt with above, these price stabilisation measures
have not to any undue extent encouraged production of the
products concerned and, therefore, could not have tended to
stimulate exports or to reduce imports. On the other hand, it
is also olear that the policy of price. stabilisation might,
under altered circumstances lead to a situation where the
domestic prices of these products may in general be maintained
at somewhat higher levels than those prevailing on overseas
markets.
20. It should be borne in mind that agricultural production
in the Union of South Africa, due to the extremely uncertain
climatic conditions, is highly variable and that periodic
surpluses and shortages are consequently characteristic of a
wide range of products. The occurrence of export surpluses
in respect of a wider range of products than has been the
case in recent years is probable, although it is possible that
the rising trend in domestic consumption may, to certain
extent, counteract such a tendency.
D. DIFFERITIAL RAILWAY RATES.
21. In South Africa, as in most other countries, railway
.rating policy is governed by three main considerations, namely,
that:-
(a) certain classes of traffic can only afford
to pay railway rates lower than the average
cost per ton mile of conveyance by rail;
(b) some classes of traffic can afford to pay
railway rates considerably higher than the
average cost per ton mile;
(c) it is better for the South African Railway
Administration, to convey additional traffic
at rates, below the average cost per ton mile
rather than lose such traffic by charging
higher rates than the traffic can afford to pay.
(i ) Nearest Port Rates.
22. For the reasons mentioned in subparagraph (o) above
a number of South African products, though chargeable at the
normal scale of rates, are granted the following concession:- GATT/CP/58/Add .3
Page 6.
"In no instance is the rata charged between South
African, railway stations higher than the port rates
according to classification, from the port nearest
to destination station, subject, however, to a
minimum specified rate per-ton per mile."
23. The essence of this principle is that if the distance
from the South African point of production to the destination
station is less than the distance from the nearest port, the
South African product pays the ordinary tariff rates. If,
however, the distance from the South African point of produc-
tion is greater than that from the nearest port, then the rate
applicable to the imported article from the nearest port applies
as a maximum on the South African article.
24. Under this provision inland producers are enabled
.to compete with the imported article in the coastal areas
where the distance from the nearest port of importation is
less than that from the inland point of production. Where
the distance from the South African point of production to
the destination station is less than from the nearest port,
the South African product pays the ordinay tariff rates.
25. It may be argued that this method of rating
constitutes an indirect subsidy. The basic principle in
this rating is, however, merely that of securing to the
South. African Railways traffic at rates below normal rather
than lose the traffic altogether. If this system of rating
were withdrawn, it would mean that a considerable volume of
traffic to the coastal areas would be lost to the Railway
Administration since inland producers would no longer be
able to market their products economically in this area.
26. It may also be contended that this rating arrange-
ment has the effect of reducing the quantity of goods which
would, otherwise be imported. This may be the eases but as
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs its application follows
ordinary railway rating principles.
(ii) Preferential Rates.
27. The policy of the South African Railways, in its
capacity as a carrier of goods, is opposed to the granting
of preferential rates since the Railway Administration
considers that if protection is to be accorded to products
of the Union it should be given by means other than railway
rates. Nevertheless, a certain number of South African
commodities do enjoy preferential tariffs, but most of these
tariffs are of very long standing having been in operation
prior to the establishment of the Union of South Africa in
1910. Since Union, however, preferential rates have been
removed from 170 articles and others may be removed, as
opportunity offers. GATT/CP/58/Add .3
Page 7.
(iii) Export Rates.
28. In accordance with the rating principle that it
is more economical for the South-African Railways to convey
additional traffic at rates below the average than to lose
such traffic altogether, reduced rates have been quoted in
favour of a number of South African commodities when
conveyed to a port for export overseas. If the normal
tariffs were charged, most if not all, of the commodities
effected could not be economically exported with a resultant
loss in traffic and revenue to the Railway Administration." |
GATT Library | vd345wg9964 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by the United Kingdom | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 6, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.9 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vd345wg9964 | vd345wg9964_90300221.xml | GATT_141 | 2,881 | 18,265 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.9
TARIFFS AND TRADE 6 September 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY
THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
2 MARCH 1950
Notification by the United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
1. The main use of subsidies in the United Kingdom is for the
purpose of stabilising at a relatively low level the prices
to consumers of a number of basic foodstuffs as part of the
United Kingdom Government's policy - which is an integral
part of its overall economic policy - of maintaining stability
in the cost of living. The main commodities to which this
applies are bacon, bread, flour, shell eggs, meat, milk, butter,
cheese, margarine, cooking fats, potatoes, sugar and tea, and
the subsidisation takes the form of trading losses incurred
by the Government on the purchase and re-sale of domestically
produced and imported foodstuffs in order to maintain the price
stabilisation scheme. For the reasons given in paragraph 7,
these subsidies, at any rate in the main and in present
circumstances, do not fall within the scope of Article XVI
of the General Agreement; nevertheless, it may be of
interest to the Contracting Parties to give the description
of these subsidies which is contained in paragraphs 3 to 7
below.
2. In addition, the United Kingdom Government grants direct
subsidies or other financial assistance (a) to calf rearing
and to the keeping of sheep and cattle on hill farms and (b)
for various forms of farm improvement (para. 8). There are at
present subsidies on flax growing (para. 9), in connection with
forestry (para. 10), the production of herring oil and meal,
the catching of white fish and certain provision of financial
assistance to inshore and herring fishermen (paras. 11-13).
In the industrial field, assistance is given to the watch and
watch jewel industries (para. 14); and there is also a
voluntary scheme (para. 15) within the film industry for
subsidising the domestic production of films out of increased
box-office receipts arising from certain tax re-adjustments.
Certain trading losses incurred by the Government in the
operation of price control schemes relating to finished and
semi-finished iron and steel and nonferrous metals arise only in
respect of imports, and are therefore outside the scope of
Article XVI. His Majesty's Government does not grant or maintain
any export subsidies; indeed, the classes of goods which it
subsidises are ones of which the United Kingdom is a large net
importer. GATT/CP/58/Add.9
Page 2.
I. FOOD SUBSIDIES
3. As already indicated, the so-called "food subsidies"
arise from the trading operations of the ministry of Food. The
detailed arrangements differ from product to product, but can be
described in general terms as follows. The Ministry of Food or
their agents purchase from domestic producers (at prices deter-
mined as indicated below) and from overseas suppliers, and re-sell
to distributors at prices which enable re-sale to the consumer
within the statutory maximum retail prices. As regards purchases
from domestic producers, first-hand purchase prices, and measures
to provide assured markets within certain limits for the main
agricultural commodities, are guaranteed to farmers in pursuance
of the Agriculture 1:4; 1947; these are determined annually in
advance on the basis of an annual review of the general economic
condition and prospects of the agricultural industry.
4. In order to enable the farmers to plan their production
efficiently, firm prices for crops (wheat, barley, oats, rye,
potatoes and sugar beet) are fixed 18 months ahead, while for
fat stock (cattle, sheep and pigs) milk and eggs, firm prices
are laid down 12 months ahead and "floor" levels below which
future prices will not be reduced are laid down from 2 to 4
years ahead. These prices are fixed at levels calculated to
secure a stable and efficient agriculture capable of producing
such part of the nations food as in the national interest it is
desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it
at minimum prices consistently with proper remuneration and living
conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an
adequate return on capital invested. The payment of these
guaranteed prices to domestic producers, and of the prices
currently prevailing for imports, together with the maintenance
of a stabilised and relatively low re-sale price to distributors,
involves the Government in the case of a number of products in
trading at a substantial loss. These trading losses are in
effect subsidies of variable amount, both on domestic and
imported products, operated by means of Government purchase.
5. Estimated trading losses during 1950-51 on those types
of foodstuffs which are produced domestically are shown in
the following table: GATT/CP/58/Add.9
Page 3.
Estimated Trading Losses during Estimated increases in
1950-51 average price which would be required to eliminate these losses
Commodity Home Imported Total Unit Home Imports
Production Production
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
£m. £m. £m. s. d. s. d.
Bacon 24.7 13.5 38.2 lb. 1 6¾ 7¼
Bread 18.3 37.0 55.3 3½lb 5¼ 5¼
loaf
Flour / 8.4 25 .5 33.9 7 lb 1 1 1 1
Shell Eggs 23.3 3.0 26.3 doz 1 5½ 3¼
Meat 37.3 2.8 40.1 lb 1 4 5
Butter 1.7 38.5 40.2 lb 1 0½ 1 0½
Cheese 3.8 15.1 18.9 lb 9¼ 9½
Sugar . 3.1 7.0 10.1 lb 1¼ 1¼
Milk 72.0 - 72.0 quart 2¾ -
Potatoes * 15.4 - 15.4 71b 2 -
Total 208.0 142.4 350.4
/ Other than flour for bread
* Includes acreage payments at the rate of £10 per acre.
In addition, trading losses are incurred in respect of tea
and raw materials for margarine and cooking fats, which are wholly
imported, and in respect of raw materials for the manufacture of
fertilisers in order to maintain a fixed and relatively low
maximum price for fertilisers used in agriculture. Taking account
also of the cost of welfare schemes for free milk in schools and
cheap milk and vitamin foods for infants and expectant mothers,
of the "attested herds" scheme (under which quality premiums are
paid for milk from dairy herds conforming to high veterinary
standards), and of day-to-day profits and losses incurred by the
Ministry of Food in trading in miscellaneous foodstuffs, the total
estimated loss on government account in trading in foodstuffs and
related raw materials for the financial year 1950-51 amounts to
approximately £410 million.
6. It follows from the nature of these arrangements that it is not
possible to separate in any precise way the element of subsidization
of producers which they contain from the element of subsidisation
of consumption; this is particularly so-because the products concerned
are price-controlled and most of them (viz, bacon, eggs, meat,
butter, cheese and sugar) are rationed. The figures in columns
(6) and (7) of the above table might be taken as a measure, in a
sense, of the "amount of subsidisation per unit"; but the fact that
(for example) home-produced sugar is subsidised at an average rats
of 1¼ d. per lb. affords no basis for estimating whether or to what
extent it would be necessary to subsidise it in order to maintain
the volume of domestic production if rationing and price-control GATT/CP/58/Add.9
Page 4.
did not exist. Further, in those cases where the figure in
column (6) exceeds that in column (7), the difference between
these columns is not necessarily a measure of the difference
in unit costs of production between domestic and overseas
producers; in the cases, for example, of meat and of eggs, the
domestic product, because of higher quality or greater freshness,
would be likely to command a larger retail price premium over
imported supplies than is permitted under the present control
of prices.
7. It is impossible to assess with any precision the effect
of these subsidy arrangements on the volume of imports of the
products concerned. It seems clear, however, that the general
effect of the system is not to decrease imports as compared with
the volume which would be imported in the absence of the system,
since: -
(a) The food subsidies, by enabling the maintenance of a
far lower level of prices to consumers than would
otherwise prevail, cause the level of demand for
foodstuffs to be considerably higher than it would
otherwise be.
(b) In order to meet the high level of demand for
foodstuffs (even when restrained by rationing), within
the limitations of the United Kingdom balance of
payments position, it is necessary both to maintain a
high volume of imports and to obtain a substantial
increase in domestic agricultural output; and the
object of the guaranteed price system is to produce
this increase.
(c) The volume of United Kingdom imports of subsidised
foodstuffs from soft currency sources is limited not
by import restrictions but by availabilities and/or
prices, while the volume of imports from hard-currency
sources is limited by severe restrictions necessary to
safeguard the balance of payments. Thus any decrease in
the subsidisation of a domestic product which resulted
in a decrease in home production would result, not in
any increase of imports (unless the Government were
prepared to pay higher prices and in consequence
higher subsidies in order to acquire additional imports
from soft-currency sources), but simply in a decrease
in the total available supply, necessitating more
severe rationing.
These comments also apply to the arrangements described in
para. 8.
II. DIRECT SUBSIDIES AND OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
Agriculture
8.Apart from the "food subsidies" direct subsidies or other
financial assistance are granted (a) to certain forms of
agricultural production and (b) to assist the improvement of
farms and agricultural land and the increased use of modern
agricultural methods. Under head (a), the following subsidies
are paid : GATT/CP/58/Add.9
Page 5.
(i) Calf rearing subsidy
This subsidy, which is aimed at encouraging the
rearing of calves for beef and milk productions
takes the form of a payment to the farmer of a fixed
rate for each calf on his farm which is certified
suitable for beef production or for dairy herd
replacement. The current rates of payment are £5
and £2 per head respectively for steer and heifer
calves. The subsidy is to be discontinued, however,
for heifers born after 30 September 1950 and for
steers born after 30 September 1951.
(ii) Subsidy to hill sheep and hill cattle
The object of this subsidy is to encourage the
maintenance (for breeding purposes and to maintain the
productivity of hill grazing land) of sheep of certain
breeds and of cattle in hill farming areas. The
subsidy takes the form of an annual payment in
respect of each animal eligible for subsidy; for the
current year, the maximum rate of subsidy is 5/- per
ewe and £4 per breeding cow or heifer,
Under head (b) may be mentioned Government refunds - as an
encouragement to land improvement (in particular the improve-
ment of grassland and the increase of tillage) and in view of
the intended elimination in 1951 of the fertilizer subsidy
mentioned in para. 5 - of a proportion of their expenditure
on lime and on fertilizers, applied to grassland and ploughed-up
grassland; grants of a proportion of farmers' expenditure on
ditching and field draining, bracken eradication, water supply
installations, and improvements to hill farms and marginal
land, and grants or loans towards the cost of grass-drying
equipment; financial assistance (in view of the recent
removal of subsidies on animal feedingstuffs) to smallholders
largely dependent on purchased feedingstuffs; and financial
assistance towards the cost of milk recording and artificial
insemination of cattle.
9. Flax. During the war, when imports of flax were
unavoidably curtailed, the United Kingdom Government and the
Government of Northern Ireland took over responsibility for
purchases and sales of flax and stimulated the expansion of
domestic production by purchasing at prices sufficient to cover
production and development costs. Control of the purchase and
sale of flax has now been removed, but subsidisation is being
continued for the time being on a limited scale. Under the
present arrangements, which will be reviewed not later than
the end of 1952, flax growers are subsidised to the extent
necessary to allow specified quantities of flax (2,000 tons
per annum in Great Britain, 4,000 tons and 2,000 tons of
rescutched tow in Northern Ireland) to be sold to flax spinners
at prices slightly above world prices for comparable grades.
10. Forestry. Financial assistance to encourage the expansion
of private commercial forestry in the United Kingdom is given to
owners of woodlands (of area not less than 2 acres) on the
following basis : GATT/CP/58/Add.9
Page 6.
(a) Where the owner is prepared to dedicate his woodland
permanently to forestry a grant of up to 25% of his
operating losses until the woodland becomes self
supporting or alternatively £12 per acre for planting
plus an annual contribution of 4 shillings per acre
towards the cost of maintenance over the first 15
years.
(b) A grant of £12 per acre for planting woodlands not
suitable for dedication, or
(c) A grant of £8 per acre or alternatively 2 shillings
per tree where not less than 200 trees are planted
in avenues for planting on land devoted exclusively
to poplars.
In addition payments are made for the timely thinning of young
plantations. Payments in respect of coniferous thinnings are
at the rate of 3 pence per cubic foot subject to certain
conditions as to area and volume or £3.15s. per acre . The flat
rate of £3.15s. per acre is also applicable to hardwoods.
Fisheries
11. White Fish. A subsidy is being paid during the period
August 1950 - January 1951 to catchers of white fish (i.e.,
any fish found in the sea except herrings, salmon, migratory
trout and shell fish) caught from British fishing vessels of
less than 140 feet in length, in certain waters (between
43º and 63º N. and east of 17ºW). For vessels up to 70 ft. in
length, the subsidy is at the rate of 10d. per stone of fish sold
wholesale; for larger vessels, it takes the form of a fixed
sum (up to £12) per day spent at sea, and is not paid or is
reduced where the gross earnings of the vessel per day at sea
and/or for the voyage exceed certain maxima.
12. Financial Assistance to Inshore and Herring Fishermen.
Under the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945, the Minister of
Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for
Scotland were authorised to make grants not exceeding a total
of £500,000 and loans not exceeding a total of £800,000 to
inshore fishermen (l.e. fishermen using boats not exceeding
70 ft. in length) for the construction, acquisition and
improvement of fishing boats and the purchase of nets and gear.
The White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1948 increased the
aggregate amounts authorised to £1,000,000 for grants and
£1,800,000 for loans. At 30 June, 1950 grants totalling
£763,363 and loans totalling £1,327,852 had been offered and
accepted. Similar grants and loans to herring fishermen may be
made under the Herring Industry Act 1944. At 30 June, 1950 grants
totalling £344,375 and loans totalling £622,489 had been offered
and accepted.
13. Herrong cil and meal. Herring surplus to other requirements
is purchased by the Herring Industry Board at a fixed price of
35 shillings per cran for conversion either in their own factories
or in commercial factories. The proceeds from the sale of oil and
of the meal (which is rationed and subject to a maximum price) GATT/CP/58/Add.9
Page 7.
does not meet the cost of purchaseprocessing and transport
of the herring taken for conversion. The Board's loss is
reimbursed by the Government by means of grants under the
White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1948. In the year
ended 31 March 1950 the total grant for these purposes
(excluding capital expenditure) amounted to £160,135.
III. INDUSTRIAL SUBSIDIES
14. Watches and watch jewels. The watch and watch jewel
industries are industries developed during the Second World War and
are not yet fully economic. To assist their development,
certain essential machinery is provided by the Government on
easy rental terms (4% per annum) and the user has the option to
purchase the machinery at the end of five years at the market
value then prevailing. It is estimated that this financial
support will not exceed 5% of the production costs of the firms
concerned during the five years rental period.
15. Films. There is no Governmental subsidisation of
films, but it may be mentioned that under a voluntary agreement
concluded on 29 July 1950, between the principal Trade
Associations of the film producers renters and exhibitors, a
central reserve of funds has been established within the industry
for the purpose of supporting and encouraging domestic production
of films. The central reserve is maintained by payments which
exhibitors have undertaken to make as a result of additional
receipts derived mainly from slight increases in the higher
prices of admission to cinemas in the United Kingdom and partly
from some adjustments made under the Finance Act, 1950 to the
scale of entertainments duty applicable to cinemas. These funds,
which it is estimated will amount to about £1½ million per
annum, are administered by a Central Committee consisting of
representatives of the film Trade Associations concerned,
30 August 1950. |
GATT Library | nq151dd4299 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by the United States | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 6, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/04/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.1 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nq151dd4299 | nq151dd4299_90300212.xml | GATT_141 | 4,091 | 26,105 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add. 1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 6 April 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH 1950
Notification by the United States
The following communication, dated April 3, 1950, has
been received from the Government of the United States:
REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES ON SUBSIDIES
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XVI
Fiscal Year 1949-50
This report has been prepared pursuant to the obligation
under Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade to notify the CONTRACTING PARTIES of any subsidies,
including any form of income or price support, leading
directly or indirectly to increased exports or to reduced
imports.
The subject matter of the report is presented in
three parts. Part I discusses the legislation currently
in effect providing for government support of
agricultural prices in the United States, Part II
discusses domestic farm surplus disposal programs, and
Part III the subsidization of exports of farm products.
I. Agricultural Price Support Legislation
1. During 1949-50 price support programs are in
effect on the 1949 crops or the 1949 production of
30 commodities. By law, price support is required for
(a) the so-called "basic commodities," cotton,
wheat, corn, tobacco, rice and peanuts, and (b) the
so-called "Steagall commodities," hogs, eggs, chickens,
turkeys, milk, butterfat, dry peas of certain varieties,
dry edible beans of certain varieties soybeans for oil,
peanuts for oil, flaxseed for oil, American-Egyptian
cotton, potatoes and sweet potatoes. During the year
price support operations are also in effect for oats,
rye, barley, grain sorghums, tung must, gum naval
stores (gum turpentine and gum rosin), hay and pasture
seed, and winter cover crop seed. GATT/CP/58/Add.1
Page 2.
2. Under the Agricultural Act of 1949, price support
operations will be required by law for the 1950. crops and the
1950 production of the following 13 commodities: (a) the
so-called ."basic commodities;'" cotton, wheat, corn, tobacco,
rice and peanuts, and (b) the "designated non-basic commoditiesp"
wool, mohair, tung nuts, honey,' Irish potatoes, whole milk
and butterfat.
Price support operations are discretionary for a number of
other commodities under the Agricultural Act of 1949. Section
401 (b) of the Act provides that in determining whether such
price support operations shall be undertaken, the Secretary of
Agriculture must take into consideration the folly owing
factors: (1) the supply of the commodity in relation to the
demand therefor; (2) the price levels at which other commodities
are being supported, and in the case of feed grains, the feed
value of such grains in relation to corn; (3) the availability
of funds; (4) the perishability of the commodity; (5) the
importance of the commodity to agriculture and the national
economy; (6) the ability to dispose of stocks acquired through
price-support operations; (7) the need for offsetting temporary
losses of export markets; (3) the ability and willingness of
producers to keep supplies in line with demand. As of February
1, 1950, the Secretary of Agriculture has announced price
support programs for the 1950 crop or production of eggs,
flaxseed, dry edible beans, winter cover crop seed and gum
naval stores.
3. Operations designed to carry out legislative guarantees
of price floors have generally resulted in effective support
of prices of domestic agricultural commodities. The precise
effect of such domestic price support programs on international
trade is difficult to determine in all cases inasmuch as
there are many other conflicting factors which influence the
flow of trade. In some instances the short-run maintenance
of price floors has tended to increase the attractiveness
of the United States market and thus to stimulate imports.
Under such circumstances, if United States prices were above
world prices, exports would probably decline.
Over a longer period, however, effective support of prices
without effective mechanism for adjusting production or regu-
lating marketing tends to increase output. If. consumption
of domestic commodities declines or does not increase at as
rapid a rate as production, government--held surpluses will
accumulate in the absence of increased foreign takings.
If the product is no longer able to compete in world markets,
the excess may be disposed of through gifts, diversion
programs, export subsidies, restriction of imports or a com-
bination of these methods. Thus price supports may lead to
situations in which, through complementary measures, imports
are reduced or exports are increased. Such measures in so far
as not covered by Article XVI itself, are covered by other
provisions of GATT under which any problems relating
'hereto may be dealt with. GATT/CP/58/Add. 31
Page 3.
4. Domestic law requires that disposition of commodities
acquired under price support programs be carried out in such
manner as not to disturb markets. Domestic legislation in
regard to the disposal of stocks owned or controlled by the
United States Department of Agriculture as a result of price
support operations is contained in Section 407 of the Agri-
culture Act of 1949 which provides that the Department of
Agriculture may not sell any basic agricultural commodity or
storable non-basic commodity at less than 5 percent above
the current support price for such commodity, plus reasonable
carrying charges. 1/
Certain specific exceptions to this rule which are per-
mitted by the law make it possible under given circumstances
to dispose of government owned or controlled stocks at
prices below this level, Thus the price restriction does
not apply to (A) sales for new or by-product uses; (B) sales
of peanuts or oilseeds for the extraction of oil, (C) sales
for seed or feed if such sales will not substantially impair
any price support program; (D) sales of commodities which
have substantially deteriorated in quality or as to which
there is danger of loss or waste through deterioration or
spoilage; (E) sales for the purpose of establishing claims
arising out of contract or against persons who have committed
fraud, misrepresentation, or other wrongful acts with respect
to the commodity; (F) sales fox, exports; (G) sales of wool;
(H) sales for other than primary uses.
1/ Prior to October 31, 1949, when the Agricultural Act of
1949 became effective, disposals were carried out in
accordance with the provisions of Section 302(h) of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended by
Section 202(a) of the Agricultural Act of 1948. Since
October 31, 1949 operations have been carried on in
accordance with the provisions of Section 407 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949.
While the present and the former disposal restrictions
have different methods of computing the minimum sales
price and refer to different types of commodities
(the Act of 1948 covered "farm" commodities whereas
the Act of 1949 covers "basic and storable non-basic"
commodities), the exception clauses are practically the
same, In discussing sales, no effort has been made
to separate sales prior to October 31 from those after
that date. GATT/CP/58/Add. 1
Page 4.
II . Domestic Subsidy Programs
(a) Sales under Section 407, Agricultural Act of 1949
The authority granted in this Section of the
Act to sell in the domestic market at prices below
the established floor has been used for potatoes
sold for non-food use, peanuts sold for the.
extraction of oil, wool, and for commodities
where there was danger of loss or waste through
deterioration or spoilage or where deterioration
had taken place. Sales made below market price,
in each case only a small part of the total supply,
were as follows:
Potatoes: Sales of potatoes were made under
exceptions (A), (C) and (D). Sales from the
1949 crop sold domestically at reduced prices
through December 31, 1949, amounted to about
7.8 million bags (100 lbs. each) for these
purposes: Stock feeding, 6.1 million bags;
starch, 1.0 million bags; feed demonstration
purposes, 0.4 million bags; flour, 0.2 million
bags, glucose, 0.1 million bags.
Peanuts: Sales of peanuts for the extraction
of oil, exception (B) totalled 334 million
pounds for $1.9 million during the period
July 1, 1949-December 31, 1949. Sales generally
were made on basis of competitive offers, at
prices reflecting market prices for the oil and
meal obtained from peanuts. These prices are
not comparable with the support price for peanuts
used for edible purposes. Marketing quotas are
currently in effect on the 1949 crop of peanuts.
Wool: Domestic wool sales, exception (G), during
the period July 1, 1949 - December 31, 1949,
amounted to approximately 58 million pounds
with a total return of $39 million. These
sales were made at prices intended to reflect
market prices. The wool sold consisted of
residual supplies in the hands of the Commodity
Credit Corporation.
(b) Section 32 Subsidies
Further provision for government sales of
agricultural commodities on the domestic market
below market price is contained in Section 32, as
amended, of the Act of August 24, 1935, which
amends the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933,
Clause 2 of Section 32 authorizes payments for
diversion of certain commodities to other than
normal channels of trade. These programs
made possible the use of products for purposes
for which they would not normal y be bought in
commercial markets. During the fiscal year
1949-50 diversion programs have been authorized
for cotton, prunes and raisins, almonds, walnuts
and filberts, GATT/CP/58/ADD.1
Page 5.
III. Export Subsidy Programs
1. Authority for export subsidies is contained in
the following United States legislation: (a) Section 32,
as amended, of the Act of August 24, 1935, which amends
the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, and including
amendment under Section 112 (f) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1948; (b) Section 407 of the Agricultural
Act of 1949, as quoted above (replacing similar
provisions of earlier acts); (c) Section 2 of the
International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949.
(a) Section 32 provides that certain funds shall
be made available annually to the Secretary of
Agriculture for a number of purposes, including the
encouragement of the exportation of agricultural
products by making benefit payments in connection
with exports, or by indemnifying exporters for losses
incurred in connection with such exports. Section 112
(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 extends
the use of Section 32 funds to payments to private
exporters and to United States agencies exporting
surplus agricultural commodities pursuant to any
act providing for assistance or relief to foreign
countries. Export subsidies under Section 32,
including subsidies under Section 112 (f) when made
on commodities moving through commercial channels,
are being paid during the current fiscal year, for
cotton, dried fruit, oranges, apples, winter pears,
wheat and wheat flour. 1/
1/ Provision has been made under Section 112 (f) to facilitate
exports to ECA countries, through government channels.
Such exports in the current year consisted of eggs, dried
fruits, flaxseed, linseed oil and peanuts. These programs,
financed entirely through Section 32 and ECA grant funds,
have not been considered as subject to the provisions of
Article XVI of GATT. A few shipments so financed, but
moving through commercial channels, may be included among the
programs reported under (a) above, when the records did not
clearly indicate the source of the funds. The quantity
of products for which export markets had to be secured was
considerably reduced by the following domestic donation
programs:
Section 32, as amended, of the Act of August 24, 1935,
which amends the Agricultural Act of 19-33, makes available
funds for the purchase and donation of agricultural pro-
ducts for school lunches, welfare agencies, and other
eligible institutions, Through December 31, 1949,
$51 million was allocated for this purpose by the Secretary
of Agriculture, of which $9.5 million had been expended.
Under Section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, the
Commodity Credit Corporation is authorized to make available
without charge, for school lunches, to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and to public and private welfare agencies, as the
point of storage, commodities acquired through price
support operations which are found to be in danger of loss
through deterioration or spoilage before they can be
disposed of in normal domestic channels without impairment
ofthe price support program. Through February 1, the
Commodity Credit Corporation has invoked provisions of the
section for white potatoes, non-fat dry milk solids, and
dry eggs. GATT/CP/58/Add. 1
Page 6.
(b) Section 407 of the Agricultural Act of 1949
provides in effect that the Commodity Credit
Corporation may sell for export, at a loss, any
commodity owned or controlled by it.
(c) Section 2 of the International Wheat Agreement
Act of 1949 provides that the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall be reimbursed, by Congressional
appropriation, for losses incurred as a result of
wheat and wheat flour sales by it under the Agreement.
2. Four circumstances have brought about a limited
use of expor t subsidies in the United States in the period
under discussion.
(a) Through the operation of various types of
domestic agricultural programs, and particularly
during periods of declining prices abroad, prices
of farm products in the United States have some-
times risen to higher levels than in other countries
In the case of some important export products sur-
pluses have accumulated which could be reduced
only be subsidizing consumption at home and sales
abroad. Such surplus conditions have been, in
substantial parts an outgrowth of war and postwar
production programs.
(b) During and after the war American agriculture
was pushed to unprecedented heights of production
in all major branches. Much of this production
served to provide for the needs of the allied forces
abroad and subsequently for those of people in
war-disrupted countries. As a cushion against the
effect of a sudden decline in demand following the
war and the post-war emergency period of shortages
abroad, price guarantees to producers have been
continued. Expanded agricultural, output on the
one hand and some shrinkage in foreign demand on
the other hand have resulted in the development of
surpluses of certain commodities, for which outlets
could not be found in the United States.
(c) The shortage of dollars in many established
foreign markets for United States agricultural
products has, for the time being, rendered ineffec-
tive the normal demand for these products. Supplies
have thus accumulated that would ordinarily have
found a ready outlet abroad. In order to reduce
the impact of this situation On the respective
producer groups, special arrangements have been
made to facilitate the movement of some of. these
commodities to their traditional markets.
(d) In the special case of wheat, United States
participation under. the International Wheat Agree-
ment made necessary payments to exporters, in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. GATT/CP/58/Add. 1
Page 7.
3. The circumstances leading to the application of the
particular export subsidy programs in use in the period under
review, and the amount of the subsidization involved, are
summarized in the following pages.
Cotton
The Section 32 program for cotton in effect during the fiscal
year 1950 is a continuation of earlier programs. However, the
rate of subsidy payment as well as exports under subsidy were
substantially reduced. Payments during the current fiscal
year through December 31, 1949, were at the nominal rate of
10 cents per bale, a rate too low to have had any effect on
commodity exports.
Fruits
Prior to the war nearly 40 percent of the winter pear production
of the United States, 35-40 percent of the dried fruit output,
and 7 percent of the citrus fruit production were exported,
mainly to European markets. In-their efforts to regain markets
after the war, our exporters encountered difficulties due to
the shortage of dollars. Demand for these products has, however;
persisted. To a small extent it has been possible to fill this
demand by making available to foreign buyers part of our
surpluses accumulated in this country at substantially lower
prices than those maintained in this country on a basis of
our price support and marketing programs. Considerable
quantities of fruit were also disposed of through domestic
donation and diversion programs.
Commercial exports of fruits and fruit products effected under
Section 32 subsidy in the fiscal year 1949-50 have been limited
mainly to countries participating in the ERP. Subsidy payments
were made to exporters upon presentation of evidence of
actual shipment.
Winter gears and apples
On October 15, 1949, payments to exporters on apples
and winter pears were announced at a maximum rate of
50 percent of the gross export sales price, f.a.s. U.S.
ports - but not more than $1.25 per container of
approximately one bushel. The subsidy applies to
exports to ERP countries, Israel, Egypt, the Philippine
Islands and Western Hemisphere countries, except Canada,
Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela. Through December 31, 1949,
payments on exports of apples and winter pears totalled
$227.257. The program was to be operative through
June 30, 1950, but was cancelled with respect to winter
pears effective February 15, 1950.
Dried Fruits (Prunes and Raisins)
Payments to exporters on prunes and raisins were
announced on August 29, 1949, at a maximum rate of
50 percent of the gross sales price, .f.a.s. U.S. ports,
on fruit shipped to ERP countries. Through December 31,
1949, payments of $22,000 were made on exports of 297
tons of raisins and prunes. The program terminates
June 30, 1950. GATT/CP/58/A.dd. 1
Page 8.
Oranges
On November 1, 1949, payments to exporters were
announced on surplus packed fresh oranges and canned
single strength and concentrated orange juice at a
maximum rate of 50 percent of the gross sales price
f.a.s. U.S. ports, on fruit shipped to ERP countries
Israel, Egypt, the Philippine Islands, and Western
Hemisphere countries except Canada, Cuba, Mexico and
Venezuela-provided that the gross sales price should
not exceed the domestic market price at the time of
sale and place of delivery. Through December 31, 1949,
no payments had been made under this program. The
program terminates June 30, 1950.
Eggs The Commodity Credit Corporation, required by law to support
egg prices at 90 percent of parity through December 31, 1949,
has purchased substantial quantities of dried and frozen
eggs. This price support program was part of the post-war
readjustment program for eggs. As a result of the
Government's encouragement to producers during the war to
increase egg production to meet military, allied and domestic
needs, a postwar surplus of lower grade eggs developed in
the areas where processing plants had been established during
the war. While better grade eggs have moved to market above
support levels, it has been necessary to undertake purchase
programs for the lower grade eggs in order to keep the average
price of eggs at the support level.
The Commodity Credit Corporation, after making all possible
sales at the full price, both in the domestic and foreign
market, undertook the commercial sale of these eggs for export
at reduced prices. Donations of dried eggs being made by
CCC both a-t home and abroad under Section 416 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949, will reduce the quantities available
for commercial export sale.
From July 1, 1949, through the end of the calendar year 1949,
commercial sales of dried whole eggs for export totalled
1,192,246 pounds on which Commodity Credit Corporation
sustained a loss of approximately $775 937 The cost of
these eggs was estimated to have been $1,549,920; thus the
rate of subsidy was approximately -0 percent. Sales were
made to Arabia, Batavia, Belgium, Chile, Germany, United
Kingdom, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Newfoundland, Philippines,
Switzerland, and Union of South Africa..
On January 18, 1950, the Commodity Credit Corporation offered
for export its stocks of dried whole eggs at 40¢ per pound,
f.a.s. New York or New Orleans. The current market price
in the U.S. is about 96¢ per lb. Sales are limited to buyers
not using ECA dollars or other funds of the United States
Government. No sales at this price had boon Sported by
February 1, 1950. GATT/CP/58/Add .1
Page 9
Whitfe Potatoes
During the war the United States Government encouraged the
expansion of potato production, to meat increased wartime
requirements. In the postwar readjustment period producers
have been protected against sudden losses by continued price
support operations. Consequently temporary surpluses of
potatoes have developed. Domestic programs were effected
to dispose of substantial quantities of potatoes below the
sui-port price (see above). Potatoes were also offered to
exporters below support prices, but no sales were made
during the fiscal year until prices were reduced to le per
bag of 100 lbs. at country shipping points.
Under provisions of an announcement on January 18, 1950,
the CCC made available for export to areas other than to
United States possessions, Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean
area an undetermined quantity at le per 100 lb. sack at
country shipping points. Exporters are required to pay the
cost of inland transportation, handling and loading abroad
vessels. Through January 25, 1950, 8 360 cwt. had been
disposed of under this program, for $63.60.
Flax Fiber
During the war the United States Government encouraged flax
fiber production to meet increased requirements at a time
when imports were difficult to secure. Stocks were accumulated
by the Commodity Credit Corporation as a result of postwar
assistance to these producers who expanded production at
Government request. Most of the stocks were disposed of on
the domestic market at competitive market prices, and small
shipments were made under ERP. In order finally to liquidate
stocks on hand, exports were made at less than the cost to
CCC. Between July 1, 1949 and December 31, 1949, 178,145
pounds of flax fiber were sold at 130 per pound, which
represented a loss to CCC of approximately $619319 or
35ó per pound.
Peanuts
As a result of price support operations on peanuts, part of
a program for post-war assistance to producers who had
expanded production during a period of world shortage of fats
and oils, the Commodity Credit Corporation was faced with
stocks of peanuts. With no alternative method of disposal
for primary use, during the period July 1, 1949-December 31,
1919 the Commodity Credit Corporation sold to Israel
2,236,875 pounds of shelled peanuts at a price of 8-1/4 ¢
per pound, representing a loss to CCC of $153,720,
On January 18, 1950, the Commodity Credit Corporation offered
for export to buyers not using ECA dollars or other funds
of the United States Government 50 million pounds of No. 2
shelled peanuts at 8-1/8 ¢ per pound, f.a.s. Gulf and
Southeastern ports. The announced price is above the
domestic price of peanuts used for expressing oil, but
blow the price of peanuts for edible purposes. GATT/CP/58/Add .1
Page 10
Dry Edible Beans
Between July 1 1949 and February 1 195O, the Commodity
Credit Corporation sold for export 1,473,195 pounds of
dry edible beans, at a total loss to CCC of $15,000.
Wheat
Up to November 4, 1949, Section 32 funds were used to
reimburse exporters for the difference between the cost of
wheat and wheat flour in the United Stntes and the price
applicable under the International Wheat Agreement. During
the current fiscal year, expend tures of Section 32 funds
for this purpose totalled $1,727,000.
Since November 4, 1949, under provisions of the International
Wheat Agreement Act of 1949, the use of Commodity Credit
Corporation funds was authorized for sales under the
Agreement. Through November 30, 1949, CCC funds expended
for this purpose totalled $1,615,000.
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Prices Announced January 18,1950
On January 18, 1950 the Commodity Credit Corporation made public
the first in a monthly list of prices at which specifid
quantities of CCC commodity holdings will be available for
export during that month. Sales are restricted to buyers not
using ECA dollars or other funds of the United States Government,
but commodities for which the sales prices are "not less than
the domestic market price on the date of sale" may be resold
to buyers using such funds. In the case of potatoes sales are
restricted to exports to areas not normally supplied by U.S.
exporters. In general commodities are offered. for sale at
current market prices; the principal exceptions, eggs ) peanuts.
and potatoes, have been dealt with under the appropriate.
commodity heading. The additional commodities offered for sale
include non-fat dry milk solids, dry edible beans, flaxseed,
linseed oil, oats, barley and corn. 1/.
1/ At the same time, CCC offered for. sale 33 million pounds of
Mexican canned meat, held in bond in this country, at 15¢
per pound, delivered alongside ship at ports on the Gulf of
Mexico. It cost between. 29 and 30 cents a pound and was
bought under a program designed to help Mexican cattlemen
find a market for cattle which no longer can be shipped to
the United States because of a quarantine against the
foot-and-mouth disease.
BE ME El, !1F |
GATT Library | ky271pv7579 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Notification by the United States. Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 25, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/04/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.1/Corr.1 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ky271pv7579 | ky271pv7579_90300213.xml | GATT_141 | 53 | 378 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
UNRESTRI CTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add . l/Corr .1
25 April 1950
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SUBSIDIES
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND
BY THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
OF 2 MARCH-1950
Notification by the United States
Corrigendum This document should be classified as "Unrestricted"
not "Restricted". |
GATT Library | qp744bt1702 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the decision of the Contracting Parties of 2 March 1950. : Summary of Information received as of 1 September 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 7, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.10 and GATT-CP/58+Add.1-13+Add.1/Corr.1*+Add.13/Corr.1* | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qp744bt1702 | qp744bt1702_90300222.xml | GATT_141 | 190 | 1,363 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.10
7 September 1950
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI AND BY
THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF
Summary of Information received as of 1 September 1950
1. Reports on subsidies under Article XVI of the General Agree-
ment have been received from the following governments and
reproduced in the documents indicated below :
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
India
Union of
South Africa
United Kingdom
United States
GATT/CP/58/Add.4
GATT/CP/58/Add.7
GATT/CP/58/Add.6
GATT/CP/58/Add.8
GATT/CP/58/Add.3
GATT/CP/58/Add.9
GATT/CP/58/Add.1
2. The following governments have advised the
notifications are being prepared :
secretariat that
Australia
Canada
Netherlands
Sweden
3. The following governments have indicated that they do not
grant or maintain any such subsidies :
Ceylon, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Indonesia, Luxemburg,
New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan and Southern Rhodesia.
In accordance with the procedure proposed in GATT/CP/58/Add.5,
it may now be recorded that on 1 August 1950 the following
countries were not granting subsidies, such as those described
in Article XVI :
Brazil, Burma, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France,
Greece, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia, Nicaragua and Syria. |
GATT Library | tb352zw9794 | Subsidies. Notifications required by Article XVI and by the desicion of the contracting parties of 2 March 1950. : Note by the Executive Secretary | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 16, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 16/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/26 and GATT/CP.5/14-28 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tb352zw9794 | tb352zw9794_90330108.xml | GATT_141 | 289 | 2,197 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.5/26
16 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
S U B S I D I E S
NOTIIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XVI
AND BY THE DESICION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF 2 MARCH 1950
Note by the Executive Secretary
1. The Decision of the Contracting parties on 2 march 1950 calls upon con-
tracting parties to submit notifications in accordance with the provisions
of Article XVI not later than August 1, 1950. Article XVI provides that
if any contracting party grants or maintains any subsidy, including any
from of income or price support, which operated directly or indirectly to
increase export of any product from, or to reduce imports of any product
into, its territory, it shall notify the Contracting Parties of the extent
and nature of hte subsidisation, of its estimated effect on the quantity
of the affected product or products imported into or exported from its
territory, and of the circumstances of making the subsidisation necessary.
2. Notifications have been received from hte following governments and
reproduced in hte documents indicated below-
Australia GATT/CP/58/Add.11 Iindia
Belgium
/Add.14 Uniobn of South
/Add.15 Africa
/Add.7 United kingdom
/Add. 6
India
Sweden
United States
GATT/CP/58/Add. 8
Add. 12
/Add. 3
/Add. 9
/Add. 1
3. The following governments have indicated that they do not grant or maintain
any such subsidies:-
Ceylon
Czechoslavakia
France (GATT/CP/58/Add.16)
Indonesia
Italy (GATT/CP/58/Add.17)
Luxembourg
Nehterlands (GATT/CP/58/Add.13)
New Zealand
Southern Rhodesia
4. No statement has been received from the following:-
Brazil Haiti
Burma Lebanon
Chile Liberia
Dominican Republic nicaragua
Greece Syria
5. The Contracting Parties may wish to take note of the foregoing
before the close of the Fifth Session.
Australia
Belgium
Canada
Cuba
Denmark
Finland |
GATT Library | dd167rq6836 | Subventions : Communication du Gouvernement de l'Italie | Accord General sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce, October 16, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 16/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.17 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dd167rq6836 | dd167rq6836_90300236.xml | GATT_141 | 536 | 3,542 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
ACCORD GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS GATT/CP/58/Add.17
16 octobre 1950
DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: FRENCH
PARTlES CONTRACTANTES
SUBVENTIONS
Communication du Gouvernement de l'Italie
Dans le document GATT/CP/58/Add.10, l'Italie figure dans la liste des
pays qui ont indique qu'ils n'accordent ni ne maintiennent aucune subven-
tion du genre de cellos qui doivent faire l'objet des notifications visees
a l'article XVI. L'Italic a presente un memorandum explicatif qui fait
l'objet du presont document.
"Aucune subvention ou prime d'exportation n'est accordeo on Italic.
La seule form de protection de la production industriello ou agricolo
est representee par les droits de douane.
Les restrictions quantitatives, que l'Italie a ete obligec d'edicter
pour proteger sa balance des paiements sont en voie de disparaítre par
suite des mesures de liberation dos echanges (voir le dernier decret mi-
nisteriel du 15 juillet 1950).
D'autres mesures autonomes ont ete adoptees en favour des importa-
tions on provenance des pays de la zone sterling (voir circulaire du
Minister du Commerce Exterour on date du 31 aout 1950).
L'Italie ne pratique pas uric politique de soutien des prix. Le
Comite Interministeriel des prix, oree par la loi du 19 octobro 1944 No 347,
a plutot le but de fixer des prix limites pour certaines matieres premieres
ou certains produits alimontaires ou industrials d'un usage courant et de
large consommation.
Il y a deux seules industries, auxquelles l'Etat accorde des subventions,
et cc sont l'industrie de la houille en Sardaigne et l'industrie du soufre on
Sicile.
Ces subventions s'inspirent de la necessite de procurer du travail a une
partio de la main-d'oeuvre de la Sardaigne et de la Sicile, c'est-a-diro de
deux regions ou la pression demographique est particulieremext accentuee par
rapport au devoloppement economique.
Elles ont done plutot un but social qu'economique et serort maintenuos
en vigueur jusqu'a ce que la reorganisation technique des industries susdites
aura permis de baisser les prix de revient au niveau international.
En cc qui concerne les consequonces des subventions, dont il s'agit, sur
les exportations ot les importations, il suffit de remarquer :
a) quant a la houille, que la quantite produite en Italic est
tres foible par rapport a la consommation; et que, d'autre
part, la qualite du charbon Sulcis est apte seulement a cer-
tains usages)
b) quant au soufre, qu'il n'y a jamais eu une importation de
soufre en Italie, la production nationale ayant toujours suffi
aux besoins du pays et meme rendu possible l'exportation d'un
certain surplus. GATT/CP/58/Add. 17. . J
Page 2 "Ce tableau ne serait pas complet, si l'on ne faisait pas mention de
certaines measures d'intervention de l'Etat dans la reglmentation du marche
du ble et de la betterave. Ces mesures ont pour but d'assurer le maintien,
sur une base remunerative, de la production de deux denrees essentielles tour
l'economic agraire, et elles sont destinees on m6me temps a permettre la fi-
xation a un niveau aussi bas que possible du prix du pain et du suore.
Bien que certaines conseguences puissant on resulter en ce qui concerne
l'importation, les mesures dont il s'agit sont justifiees par la necessite
de sauvegarder les interets vitaux du pays, Ia protection economique etant
confiee aux droits de douane."
I K
b = ~goB |
GATT Library | hc930fn0828 | Subventions. Notification Prevue par L'article XVI et par la Decision des Parties Contractantes en Date du 2 Mars 1950. : Notification du Canada. Année civile 1949 ou exercice financier 1949-1950 selon les indications | October 6, 1950 | Parties Contractantes and Contracting Parties | 06/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.14 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hc930fn0828 | hc930fn0828_90300233.xml | GATT_141 | 5,083 | 29,621 | RESTRICTED
LIMlTED B
GATT/CP/58/Add.14
6 octobre 1950
FRENCH
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
S U B V E N T I O N S
NOTIFICATION PREVUE TJE P .R L'ARTICLE XVI ET PAR LA DECISION
DES PARTIES CONTRACTANTES EN DATE DU 2 MARS 1950
Notification du Canada
Année civile 1949 ou exercice financier 1949-1950
selon les indications.
Le présent rapport a été préparé en exécution de l'oblogation
qu'impose l'article XVI de l'Accord général sur les Tarifs douaniers
et le Commerce, de notifier aux PARTIES CONTRACTANTES toute subvention,
y compris toute former de protection des revenus ou du soutien des prix,
qui a directement ou indirectement pour effot d'accroitre les exporta-
tions ou de réduire les importations.
Les subventions fédérales, y compris toute forme de protection des
revenus ou de soutien des prix, qui peuvent être envisage du point de
vue de l'article XVI sont examinées sous les deux principales rubriques
suivantes:
I Produits agricoles
II Produits minéraux
Darns chacun de des groupes, les subventions sont examinées sous les
subdivisions cuivantes:- base juricique de la subvention; conditions
d'attribution; nature et portée; cout et conséquendes.
I SUBVENTIONS ACCORDEES CU MAINTENUES POUR LES PRODUITS AGRICOLES
1. CEREALES ET PRODUITS DERIVES DES CEREALES
Céeéales de l'Quest, entières ou moulues, son, issues de remoulage,
issues de recoupe, criblues, er sous-produits servant à l'alimenta-
tion du betail
Base juridique -C.P. 7523 du 25 septembre 1941, C.P. 5434 du 17
novembre 1949, concernant l'assistance en matière de frais de transport.
Conditions. d'attribution -ll s'agit là d'une mesure prise on temos
de guerre qui avait pour but d'assurer l'utilisation des excédants de
céréales destinés a l'alimentation du bétail et d'aider les agri-
cultours de l'Est à obtenir de l' a'iet les céréales et seus-produits
nécessaires pour l'alimentation du bétail à des prix leur permettant
de maintenir la production de cheptel.
Nature et portée - La subvention qui couvre presque tous les frais de
transport est versé pour les céréales de l'Ouest et leurs sous-produits
qui sont tr,ansportés par chargements de vagos de vagons complets de Fort Wil-
lian-Port Arthur vers des localités e l'Est du Canada et de localités GATT/CP/58/Add.14
Page 2
de l'Lst du Canada et de localités de l'Quest du Canada vers la
w-'olo...biL Britanique. La subvention n'est pas pauée pour les
céréalites et les sous-produits destinés à l'alimentation du bétail
qui sont emportés. Le montant des frais de transport est rembour-
sé aux négocianes gres recevant la . ...ioflhandis,_ lorsque foue-
nissent le preave de l'utilisation de ces cérales.
Cout - Le taux de la subvention pour de transport varie pour
une tenne de C à 20 / selon la distance percourue. La dépense
totale qu'a entrainée cette subvention pour le transport des sous-
produits destinés à .'aii nb ticn du bétail au cours de l'année civile
1949 s'est élevée à $10,254.000. Du ler janvier du 31 si 1950, clle
a atteint $3,813,000.
Consécuences - L-application de cette musures a eu probablement trois
conséquenes : la plus importante a été la réduction des importations
de produits pour l'alimentation du bétail, du fait que la consonna-
tion conl ..li.rnX a été ItG tnc -ur^.- bc ,-.1. L -i.entrainé une,
diminution des exportations de produits pour l'alimentation du bé-
tail on provenance de l'Quest canadian. .n. .niin, uit.. c:.-; nC une
-.1. .Jt.?Lt2Ll...fl *.t.- c I.A::t-.ti.on1o. c..:vi.Lnn^-de poies et de produits
porein, en staissent le cout du production.
2 COMPTEL ET PRODUITS DE L'ELEVAGE
Primes pour porcs
Base juridique - C.P. 62 du 10 janvier 1944, modifié en avril 1946.
Conditions d'attribution - Cette subvention avait pour but d'amé-
liorar la qualité du bacon canadien et d'encourager les éleveurs à
écouler leurs porces par l'intermédiare d'establissements surveillés.
Fature et portée - Le payment de la prime de qualité est limité aux
éleveursqui livrent leurs pores pour l'abattage à des établissements
surveillés ou reconnus sur le territoire du danada. L'agriculteur
reçoit avec son récépiss un certificat un prime qui est négociable
du : _ '*l -r' u - ' uno i.vit, ,"4i .'i Le Gouvernament rembourse
ensuite la banque. En 1949, , c $2 par tete a été versée
pour les carcasses de la catégorie "A" et de $1 par tete pour la
catégoris "B-1". Les momes taux de prime ont été appliqués on 1950.
Co6ut *al noac c'. 1' -m'e oLl 1,'.?, i. .rim ..s .ooa *orcs onrt
couté au Gouvernement $' ,696,000. En 1950, jusqu'au 30 avril, le
Gouvernement avait versé à ce titre '. c 00. 0. Le nombre total des
pores lc, trouvent dans les fermes du Canada du ler juin 1949 était
estimé à 5,163,000 et leur valour totale à $178,362,000.
Cons_ _u 1 rime de quelité n'ait pas entraine une
augmentation sensible des pores de qualité supéricure vendus au Ca-
nada, on estime -!' cU-' <.-it ca' lca maintenir la proportion
des pores de d :- I !' "; r ;L ¢; ' . nts t on des frais d'alimen-
tation. La production et lex exportations canadiennes de pores et
de produits percins ont a.illi-1. . cours des O.5-C; 17;{. . ' r s n.. -cs , ;. s
cet . subvention a cependant f cilité production et l'exportation
des qualitée supérieures de ces produits. GATT/CP/58/Add.14 Page 3
Subvention decoulant de l'accord de 1950 concludentre le Canada et
le Royaume-Uni en vue de l'exportion de bacon
Ease juridiue - Loi de 1947 sur les produits agricoles (Agricultural
Products Act, 1947), C.P. 323 du 20 janvier 1950.
Conditions d'attribution - en raison du cn . , .des conditions
du ,marché et de l'augmentation des difficultés des pays étran ers
en matière de devises, l'accord de 1950 avec la Royaume-Uni pour
l'exportation de sacon porte sur une quentité - Je-2UCOUP plus faible
et prevoit un prix très infériour (60 I o 29 cents per lb. en
1950 contre i'Ck. :.m. lbs à 36 cents par lb. en 1949). An vue d'eviter
que cetre réduction massive de la quentité et du prix résultant de
l'accord d'exportation n'exerce une influence defaverable sur le
marché des popes canadian et n' uen sériouse diminution du
revenu des eleveurs de pores, le gouvernement a prix des mesures
pour stabiliser le marché. L'Office de la vianue a a O rt d'ache-
tur tioutes les disponibilites d'une qualité donnée de bacon à 31.5
cents la livre, co qui representarait un prix supérieur de 3.5 cents
au prix contractuel d'exportation, mais inférieur de 3.5 cents au prix
contracts el de 1949.
Nature et portée - Comme le prix contractuel est de 29 cents par lb.
et que le prix offert par l'Office de la Viande pour la même qualité
est de 32.5 cents, la Gouvernement en verse on reslité une subvention à
l'exportation de 3.3 cents par lb. pour les expéditions à destination
du Royaume-Uni. Jusqu'iei, les ventes effectuées auprés de l'Office
de la Viande sont très inféricures aux quantités prévues par le contrat,
de sorte que cette opération de soutiens des prix n'a pas eu pour con-
séquence une accumulation de stocks de sacon.
Cout - Au cours des six premiers mois de 1950, les dépenses au'a
entrainées cette subvention pour le Gouvernment canadien se sont
elevées à $0,5 million environ. La valeur des ventes de porcs
au cours de cetse période est evaluee à environ $150 millions.
Conséquences - La subvention a du pour effet de maintenir la pro-
duction et les exortation canadiennes vers le Royaume-Uni à un
niveau plus élevé qu'il ne l'aurait été sans cela.
Peaux de rprrLr les catégories "platinée" et
"balanche"
Base juridique - Loi de 1939 sur la vente cooperative des produits
agricoles (The Agricultural Produits Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939).
Conditonns d'attribution - Les éleveurs manquaient souvent au début
de la saison des crédits nécessaires et se stircc; .. t 00i 69l.1 vaient coliges de ce
fait de jetr sur le marché de prande quantités de fourrures. La
garantie du payment d'un avance leur fournit l'aide financière né-
cessaire à ce moment et régularise le marché.
Nature et portée - Le Ministre de l'agriculture condlut des accords
avec les organisations de vente de peaux de renerds qui acceptent de
vendre leurs produits selon un i..Ion UI; , it, coopératif. CEtee mesure
n'entraine pas de perte pour le Gouvernement à moins que le prix de
vente ne soit inférieur à l'avance iniriale.
Cout - .,-;s vrz.iocm.. ini ia-u; fi' otlud ufl vcrbu e..c accords lQ';)-
50 represetnent environ 50 des prix de gros moyens des trois dernières
années. La garantie moyenne effective par peau est d'a peu prés 40;
intérieure au vercement initial moyen de la saison 1948-49. GATT/CP/58/Add.14
Page 4
Conséquences - Sion que l'elevage des renaras dans les fermes et les
exportations de peaux de renards aient décliné régulièrement depuis
1939, cette subvention a probaolement cu pour effet de maintenir les
exportations à un niveau supérieur a colui qu'elles auraietn atteint
dani d'autres conditions.
3. PRODUITS LATTERS
Primes pour la qualité du formage
Base juriduque - Loi de 1939 relative à l'amelioration du forma et
des fromageries, s, -. a so ai ri .cr.di (Cheese and Cheese Factory
Improvement Act, 1939, as amended).
Conditions d'attribution - Le but Dut c- ct _ subvention est d'améliorer
la qualité au fromage de cheddar.
Nature et pertée - Le i.: _ > Le~yD ~rr;W.^ 1-.t ,~_t~k~ ao l'Agriculture verse une
couvention aux fromagerise pour les fromages de qualité supérieure
qui sons classés dans les stations d' 2.. .. .i$ du Gouvernement. Des fro-
mageries districuent c~tGi'JUont atcaVT subvention a leurs fournisseurs de lait.
½. n ;nct, est de un cent par lb. de roihia d'une qualité atteignant
93 points et de deux cents pour la qualité qui atteint ou dépasse 94
points.
Cout - Le total de la suovention a'est élevé à $510,000, répar-
tis sur 60,500,000 les et em 1950, à $108,000, du ler janvier au 31 mai.
An 1945, la production totale de promage Cheddar était de 113,787,000
lbs d'un valeur approximative de $34 millions.
Concéquencees - .i ;n production et l'exportation du fromage Cheddar
aient diminue cu cours des ; .mnnt'rcs rnnoo, cette subvention a pro-
bablemetn encouragé la production et l'exportation de fromagee de qualité
supérieure.
coutien des prix du fromage
Base juriaique - 1949 - Lei de 1944 aur le soution des prix dans l'agri-
culture pous GU!- .rm j w~t';lCX.ic~ffiaia (Agricultural Price4s support Act 1944,
es amended), , - -.L. 4325 du 24 aout 1949. -1950 loi de 1947 sur
les produite agricoles (Agricultyural Products Act, 1947) et C.P. 366 du
25 janvier 1950.
Conditons d'attribution - Des contrats conclus avec le Royaume-Uni
ont cu pour eff At m'tpsur r tn prix de -,) * O. iJur de fromage de 1940
jusqu'au lor aout 1949, r, c.<.. t lra IIi -. corntra.tz ont- pris fin. Du
24 aout au 31 décember 1949, l'effice du soution des prix dans l'agri-
culture a effectue des cbs ccchr <in cc' &vic r une baise trop brusque
des prix qui surait centraine-I n 6 pour l'industrie
laitière. En 1950, 1. o:urn orit ;' .6r.l .' varsU imo subvention pour
cons;r_ lunrcc-.r dans une certain mesure une baise bruque du prix à
i .turu et portée - ½. contrat de 1949 avec le Royaume-Uni prévoyait
l'expédition de 50,000,000 livres iivr(.: i c. :t-roil- .; c0 L première qualité au
prix de 30 cents par lb, 7. a, , i fromagerie. Le contrat a été
entièrement exécuté au mois d'aout et l'Office de soutien des prix
dans l'agriculture s'est engage à acheter au prix contractuel le fro-
mage fabriqué à partir du ler aout 1949.
Un nouveau contrat a ete négocié en 1950, qui prévoit , l'expé-
dition de 70 à 84,7 millions de livres de fromage de première qualitè GATT/CP/58/Add.14
Page 5
au prix de 23 cents par lb., f.a.s. Office ' =aritimo Canadion.
L'office des produits laitiers a éte autorisé à acheter les quan-
tités de fromage nécessaires pour exécuter le contrat au prix de
28 cents par lb., première quelitè, f.a.s. Office Liari4imnz Canadion,
Les trois cents de différence entre c. prix et le prox contractuel
étant prelevés sur les crédits fourmnis par le Gouvernement canadien.
Cout - Le 31 mai 1950, la valeur comptable du fromage detenu par
l'Office de soutien des prix dans l'Agriculture était de $5,347,000
et la quantité, de 16,7 milions de lbs. On estime que la plus
grande partie de cetts quantite sera vendue et que les dépenses seront
récupérées.
Du ler janvier au 31 mai 1950, la subvention de 3 cents pour le
fromage acheté par l'Office des produits laitiers en vue de l'exécution
du contrat conclu avec le Royaume-UnI a entraine une dépense de
000,2
Conséquences - Bien que le volume des exportations n'ait pas augmen-
té, la subvention a eu pour résultat direct de maintenir la production
de fromage de Cheddar et son exportation à destination du Royaume-
Uni.
Soutien du prix du beurre
Base ,juridique -Loi de 1944 sur Ie soution des prix dans l'agricul-
ture sous sa forme amendée(Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, as
amended), C.F. 1573 du 14 avril 1949, 0.P. 1609 du 28 mars 1930 et
C.P. 2126 du 23 avril 1950.
Conditions d'attribution - La production du beurre au Canada est
habituellent à peu près suffisent pour les bessions du pays. Il y
a de temps à autre quelques potits excédents ou déficit. En raison
des fluctuations importantes de la production du beurre pendant la
saison 1947-48 et l'incertitude qui a caractérisé la vente du beurre
pendant la saison 1948-49, les commercants étaient peu enclins à
effectuer leurs stockages habituels. Afin d'éviter de trops grandes
fluctuations des prix, le Gouvernement a fixé, le ler avril 1949, un
prix minimum de base du beurre en vertu de la loi le soutien des
prix, dans l'agriculture.
Nature et portée - Du ler avril 1949 au 30 avril 1950, le prix de
soution du beurre de première qualité était de 58 cents par le.,
pour livraison à Montréal et à Toronto. Eu ler mai 1950 au 30 avril
1951, les prix de seution seront de 53 cents par lb. , pour livraison
à Montréal on à Toronto.
Cout - La valeur compteele du beaurre détenu par l'Office au 31 mai
1950 était de $11,334,000 et la quantité était estime à .19,1
millions lbs. On estime que la plus grande partie de la somme qui
reste à percevoir sera récupére. La production du beurre fabrioué
industriellement au Canada s'est a s 'cst l..ve.l :ri J11. ' 278 ,657 ,000 lbs,
d'une valeur approximative de $153,261,000.
Conséquences - Les exportations de beurre par l'intermédiaire du
commerce privé se cont élevées en 1949 à 1,069,000 les. Des expor-
tations de l'année 1950, jusqu'au 30 avril, ont atteint 641 ,000 lbs.,
dont la plus grande paritie a t. pruvua sur los -;tocks détenus per
le Gouvurnement. Le prix a. 1'a;xI)0t.tAiOnl de cotl-t quantité de beurre
a été inferieur de 10, environ au prix de vente é l'intérieur du pays. GATT/CP/58/Add.I4
acutien du prik du lait ecreme en ocudre
Ease juridioue Loi de 1944 sur le soutien des prix dans l'gri-
culture sous sa forme modifiee (Agricultural Prices Support Act,
1944, as amended), et C.P. 2250 du 27 mai 1949,
Conditions, d'attribution - II y a eu, en 1949, une grande accumu-
lation de ce produit, due en grende partie aux restrictions d'importa-
tions imposees par les pays etrangers, malgre le fait que la prepara-
tion du lait ecreme an poudre et du beurre avait ete derivee vers la
faorication du fromago et d'autres produits. Les measures de soutien
des prix ont ete prises pour eviter une chute brusque des prix.
Nature et portee - L'Office a ete autorise a acheter du lait ecreme
en pouere de premiere qualite qualite jusqu'a concurrence d'un maximum de
1,000,000 raison de 9,5 cents par lb pour le produit fabrique
par dessication sur cylindre et de 10.7 cents par lb pour le pro-
cuit fabrique par pulerisation f.o.o. pour les localites au pays. pays,
o asquantite qui a ete effectivement a w`tee etait de 10,380,641ai80,6
'os, Uluee vdls$994,740, Le gouvernement a _ adfaid .on te la to-
tauLconds : o.nenational dersecours a l'Enfance. 'orn'eice.
s - Les stocks detenus par le Gouvernement ont ete ecoulesr i1 C:ouvet 2tc Ci-coul6s
ales. ie p ndoLrciekseneficie par it n- beWn&U icie poas actle-
ix.-nt t' un tn orix,
4. PO. -.
sse deu1949 sutu -soutien 1-9 pur Iean-altiagries irix dns d 'ngri-
me amendee Agricultural Prics suupport Act, 1949,trrs -rices suppor, 1949,
as amptembre 1949.4C.P. u 13 se ;C: .crs 139 0.? 1780 et ".P, 1781
du 12 avril 1950.
'Ancitions de.la per,tt-es.marches d'outre-p-re d03:c-.i-rdh6s dtoutr
tes qu'eprouvent les pays etrangers en ma-'u 'Orouvent les pI.y:2 `tors en .lma-
juge opportun d'aider les pro-_. '- oiu-vernsc-vlt C'. ju<',L opportaider 1iss pro-
d'exportation scaivc-unc trouv des KD:cuch -s ½e xport?.ti
Dour lur. 1e° :.s r.; mch', t coinle6 ts-r lsamms qui revienntmt
aux proctuc teur
d'une .,r-evention Une -io. ic-U-, lou a L2 foi-m.e- L- subvfsntion
c. 1 'e art.la re- \ L~o.-tUo nur .^,nrron _, c;C ,c .oi soau, is r-
ux. sLa depense.-- 6t' d 1?,i ::i ions s iboi sepu. iipense
total!OonOUi-' c e . L.i ue oi5es; 'est ris .'- 1 milli os
itanni- A'-c, *(' W , .!1 , -. te c is , *..:. l..s , oscumnts brit,,axnni-
quv.6 ft cans;Clmn.
Couts - outrte j c;J,;,;flS. .! 1, :iii/ionI, lo subvntions -uti
vI..urs Zse -Iori J1vces ../2 ,Lc- i7. iOf2$ C ui r-rt sent
i-. nn.r.-nt WUAC dol pt;rIsG 1C`tc.'LT.G co A. . iiions pouI 1a r6co
PO.A. eS dee ! * u. iv aLsur ;.. c ,te r'cu-ol -.t Osti-L
imi.ilions
Consvciucnce Iaesuc a u co:; r*suld dir>,Gt de *`flvoriser
1'cexrrortatcion u* oe aom:1c, vlre . . -.rc h- 'u loyau ni.
~. .1..
._.
S euridiluc -:oi se .L941;. sur 1.; ..coutiun cF Di: dans 1'agriculture
7Akriculturc1 *L'riez ;u, por Act, 1944), i9oP 178'', du 7 avril 1'4 GATT/CP/58/Add. 14
Page 7
Conditions d'attribution - to out de cette mesure etait d'evitor
la chute brusque des prix qui se serait produite en raison de l'abon-
dance de miel due a tres bonne recolte de 1948 et de la diminu-
tion des debouches d'outre-mer,
Nature et portee - Le Gouvernemont a annonc'ele 9 avril 1949 qu'il
acheterait jusciu 'au 31 juillet 1949, 3 millions de lbs de la pro-
duction du miel de 1948. Ces achats n'ont porte que Sur des reci-
pients pouvant constitur des chargements de wagens complets et
ont ete effectues au prix de 14 cents la lo pour le miel blanc de
la qualite No.l.
Cout - De total des achats- effectues par le Gouvernement s'est ele-
ve a 3 ,002 ,346 lbs et a entrairepour le Tresor une depense de
369,232. Les ventes a l'exportation du ler janvier au 30 juin
1050 ont atteint 102,000 lbs, et sur ces ventes, les Gouvernement
a recupere 8,731. La production totale de miel au Canada s'est
elevee en 1948 a 4 milions du lbs pour une valeur a la ferme
d'environ /9,3 millions. La recolte de 1949 qui est tombee a
33,2 millions de lbs a ete estimee a /5,2 millions. Elle n'est pas
au benefice d'un soution de prix et en raison de cetwe recolte
deficitaire, on compte que les quantites de miel blane que detient
l'Office seront ecoulees sans perte sur le marche interieur.
Consequences - Uno subvention est comprise dans les ventes a l'ex-
portation qui ont rapporte 3 a 4 cents de moins par lb. que prix
d' achet. Ls oxporta-ions qui, avant loa guerre, variaient ontrc
3 et 10 millions de lbs, sont tomb~es en 1G495U 29,000 lbs.
II, SUBVENTIONS ACCORDEES OU MAINTENUES PQUR LES PRODUITS MINERAUX
1. SUBVENTIONS AUX TRANSPORTS DE CHARBONCHIjRBON
idique - Loi de 19i doc 1le 7 sute1dComi-t Ku Charbon du Dominion
n9CiAnibn Uoal -oar947ct, 1F.4), C.I- 5896decembreuce9liDb 1(48.
utiontributio
aitioCens/- ;vmee 'assistance, maintenue a des degres divers dos ck divers
ri, uans, a eteGoes aeisecessaire duc laeEosaire par 1i situation
gogisements canadiens eu entOs canm,-uie charbon par rapport aux
gationaux areh et'-idnaux dette pro!uit. Ct,-te asistance, vise a.
eminement de ckhellinmi.ant echerbonecanadis partiesrtaine , ?!''ti
du cenu-G du pays,lunperequation du cout de livraisonou.tl d- livra-aon
nuecharbcharbon extrait aux Etats--x-srait aux Ltat Uni .
es.suroentions destinees a ioaciliter les tranf-cilitor les t.ras-
pottt eo chaiees sAn' tr'eule J.6u. 1 unc soulot exception pres,
l6ermettre au charbon de la Nouvelle-Ebon d; 1,a n(L h Ecosse, du
Idouveau-runewick,d.U Sasketchdeala ue lmbiaora ab d Coloabi.
currencer le charbon importe, sur les marches desrt6, Sur l_- :;arc,"Los
et de Quebec. La seule exception vise la , saCulo, o ion viso l
e lventerta et e la Colombie Britannique a (.;olo;;aic .Citf2fliCtc;;
e utilise exclusivement dans le su:r ej ut ili.c d.n:, ls
locorotives.
Co~t - Leecitees pour l'annes civile prditcos pour 1 ta rnno civil
1,4et un9 a attsirnt,4,401832'llaestonnesal do 2 ,L mllions d, -Ltormus
transporte. en -3t9oale chifre totallOI ln 194:, J chi:. ot;, :l
dos 1'iepeodectiomillions de -tonnes.rbon a 6t6 do 19 :-..illion:s doonis, GATT/CP/58/Add.14
Consesuences -II ,, - Ti cc( i8 >_1S ............ ; U tr~ _01 !.' 'c :- is cw c jubv_ cnc ''_i'@i.Oil ' unc
uP i' .. ; _I i ' !t L . 1,, tO . ...u ci9. i:'ur co: ! i6 ct. -'_ ;' S .ws ,c -c, :r .L r i Wi ;._S
ci;', 1~l: U;_lC.~t 1.1 *fp:..i R~a iL .:U8. ..' ..'l-:iz ;:'.lL' ,i'. 7>;>L LWgt 1. r 2.
- A- e
0.,;iL'_rl( r .On i.r L .c i. tn '.orc /.. .t .. L1vi i r. -. 5t 1ion .22n1-
I j'1UV - 0' 'U)' L'.; ;CW~1Il ~I cO h~ro ::?izac (U 1Dm 01
-'O~~iW~iY01 r. .-nj-*np r..ion -Cd;~ nir rCiui I
,1 1: , _ -,- _- u 1
:r|... (') ; .Ilx. C ...L;:) . Lc;r orut ....... *.Li~. l 1o ,-ornno_ i-
.), ~ ~ ' ul .V *'. 'ti . I/ U! O1'O C W '_ ',''._ C:i '. :. ';, J ; .'<.l4 ' P -
Joxc, i Jlu 1LC ci oi C I *chxz nl 0 .J
)OijIV... inLlr~i. LI. llv1 - oi sw. :cL1~ .'i' GUc ( nocir onit cn, ion (.o dAl
uc;l. o t. P. L. ?u bi- *''! ctU 1; i;n. . rs .
. . or!& :i .'' - riiouo ..on - ..r;u11.on -. # ut crlori cuannv.,t1cn
tIt '. _ , .,JDk -CI 1', i i.On C l oi t i I ,f;) {': 1": il h C ,n&>i:. ; .-*;. i U. ~
p'_''i..;_t i-, _AC, cc -,c> n i' c: iC U n-
Ii.,C 3~o i )1 O lo, ,: ii(r i-L I S.#<C Ctz I.;i-,i1u2 ,'b ].-- a'CN _'i,O'u e ;.#l;usl4 <
11-uri1c nc-cs' - . n -.. .1 . . ...-it -. - L i J oci .. Do rt.Ui';: C~tfl;iU.1CiUllU'
(2n0.ri ooi C'. U- 6.. 111'. /i .. :_. .0!_ z iY .0.i .-1- 0i 0 l. T u( 1c U `
t.L...,Lr._ c n i.; :".nL'tc p ' t''Iu :,I\-'- '~itr ubvm l;iOn'' _ ic. .vc iri .cur W.. xnoi' Ln-
ca* nr-(1
-1ouv.-lt : L1.,.j. L . 01 . 1 . a .L' '9C,'11. , .o Z , . c 7r-o .: .LC par
-..! .t1b ci 'r'., ; t Iiu r0 ....IL ......... c.nr; 1,ci.L..; ... .m:..;; o 1 d s
3ccrw - d rn r u 1 .t i nC. . ':; t;j_., 2.Th211 1 0 ' t ., ,0 C; w :. r
.:tJ p.~roc L <.wV 'it,1;.o , io". . ¢ c.... ;on c 1b.
.. 31Il.' P. . LA ~'pcim~~!.~ lM. .
.iai' C:~ jc..n. ~ tC 'ilL .i ~r - .Lcpj.~,1 ~aoi. 2,'1)k~ti cu par il Lou't
.ol7L~t'<lll il'<,S - .JI's L .':., l (li'1' ,,c,8Xj 1,-5 C o>LU>:oil l ciJr.unai,; 1?'o-
w'. ... - ..t. o. . i '. r ! 1 . o 1 '.:', , \ ' i, l . ' .CD I_
inC t'r-'I. 0-1' . ,;l n ii...c,1..I.. Ul'' . ci;forur .L .. .. JJ'btd a
Iibn od 1'. 'uCi qu .a -
uu.ir, _V lC, 1 ic.-oo tioc .fl.- - o A..', un. 1cK.A.ubvCn icn W' Li
..,. 1 . r j bflO t n . ch r;.o. i. _l, ., I J.0fl .0jo id .l cn ac
(itJ_ (it, ' :..~ .C t..n............... L11 !.. . ci .. ..~ i. . U C.J.; n.) on, -- C'o 1!' _G................. c.t ... . .. ..
- j, vHn:'X -ion en't L- Lc n dUrV dr n C ( . ion. I (10 .> a. u n U;: i
- r i ''. -n 0i C* . i. ,!U( ;Di .:L 3 .cu 2) 3.1' o.A. t, ln.. C u 1..
1' .L nsCtII in \s *Ow 'v~t ~n Ul ' Ji on lL' t, (.'1,'. , . 1,o 1W-~s
1.'C '2'C j; i c~, , . ! ' ~1 ~j. 5 ici '.: . o .' t i L u . c.c : i r c'.k o. cou e )
.,;.Ji- -#~ Ix IC'ti! :!4.4,1:..'1 '''-l. r ~ >8.,M;,: ur-,i O -.uil_-li r (D r
,>ut~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ol.~ol . ,'' l'.c\nll-;l -; il .,.':u ' C tl''l. ;1cO LI hi btde GATT/CP/56/Add.14 page 9 ?,, Ci A<..
;'Os'i9- uEnl *".',.* -:j ''L;2"r I;~n :15.1;^ u.;va- 2~~ w 1.X<S._,. '0ic.3'(
<tori.sur o - cxi iV LL.. :.'..-D. t -. _na~x.. 'eU: 2vi'' Iris s.s ui 1
iir~~c~r ¾. ot on. . .,6 1. ciri YL,. 2<'cdC. uok, I
SU.Y1n OI ublcs -ou i ;i i:cr,.. _:''+ .L ._' .w. *;vz^. 'ri;ClEt.'.. I 'or oi cli;c1j.!'
:ni^rUr<1')s12tt .'3v '- - K nt 1-ifiis J.ii C o':li 'L-It~~l
..l- ci - _.1 .irL.s. r.oi ri. ;i . , _U i C.Li.2 ' iC j. lS
lisc'1_''.1Ol !ir'Lt: -inll VO,Lor 1.>- , -A.01 c, Ci~ IU Ci_ I1 s-
ri oncv ;C~st~v. u0' *:~ _- . '.'.i: bcnc±.n. c : 11 -,Dri:~ .<- r; i un- :090 'irn _!to1c: U.i s ,21
siiI.ionv ic 0 o ri c s
J1 ;_: i ii- iLi.-._ a2'_ U irl s. ! UL
L. .UQkzNYCJ I._~.1 . ... _ . _K.L~
- Loi des finances No. 7 ae 1949 - 0 Toppropriation Act,roprc- .ion -ot
No. 7, 21054 du u II947.u :Ac-.i 1L7^
ttribution - Ceate subvention dont l'objet est de main.' 0Dt;i, C! 4-
ite r 1L C c _.. `.de!l'ineustrie -. -Linuscric 'anadiennellU c~l1l.0'in
i1 k_ :'! O ' _11C tGIUl 'J-IC - si-C~~ "4 ' i.I_ : : -,v : o n; 'i , ..riz
Li. L.@ , ;'.iU. ivS-'.L..U . '' I iC J. 1N2 I '_ 12 i.. A '':.CiiL :iri (' .i. , . Li o_,
>. ;SU_'C)V.. or:- 8l C Oi. I'l V.a';* 1. c2'. ;v ~. .ui. l 0. IC u1. '; 215Y! .i.S' s "1ii'i. tt1_ 0$ GO E i
i.;!U;~~~1- i i. i il _
n:u~ :LJ. izcc
ee - Aux , coj 920 - .r-L1X ,. ..<...~ .'L, :I.cN ij1o.ionl .K- t.'Ci. CK , 1>K I-'~l
ltiOl cCJUV.T%; Loli 1 r!-J. 2W .no rtc rc C,3 1 i VS C
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V..a c .'- c , . _ . A _U
i.200G - .4... .. so Xvr'L:rio~nc. \..uLi. _s v-lgO .." "0~ts .uo h i Ku Kf. cC:;..-1..*fLu i Ui 27 L. ;
chifre h6 L 1 j or i1 ; w u 1 .. C2.. if. ( Ci 1 n c ' ].r.
Li2'UL (2A027L in>t_ 2' ;;201 t21 i.r ; t$'4vC 2fl 'U')v]~~lr. lK.J &. *.l.-onsr ,
't'ilip X~oriil c~zol.e u.~lr l.)*_'!' c'iv-on t-Nil cs'j' ,--il~lio -is
onn t nn.ns i.tl t iiCi . c . . 1 2 .dil Lion c i c dci. .rs
e peut rt k.1,3. ,1;.;'UL -,)f .]l .[: ,ncl; Cl- c l ; *~._l' N<L~ol.v'.'. St,'
cier O rt G - j. u. c '. l I' U' _.n l 'i ( . v u. -1-n
e que la ,,,, t b J'4 * 50 . -l v on .oj) > Ci _ _ ..JX'r 1. pii.ri4;
adienne d'aciers in ortes..II_ k.. CApl oi" oitcc. 11 ~ A_ mct ciil
ncequence indirect d'aciers ~ i7!l 2212-. .fc.''ir C's ., 2~ivv CC 1:1 ,i j*,i1 Cl~ ')wn'3'u ..± 1-O..2
1(3 ¢ ;;v pa.url I).; <r,.Yil-c inci ir,,c' t , cc ro1 ,_uvolumeG:,~ _'\o1l!1
U PORT DU U Li - 2o¾ vI.icV
i_ X_)Ti<.`ic~u",- 0.?, ' .;u. 1 EKthiO.LS; 1.,, , .oro,., ..t; ci!i c. c n
arnnce r..M.5.:. L,-)i:.. Fitrii..lces SI.5,.-o. i,.sir .C tS
t~ol. i.;;O~l .I :-t L~pil m1.1di.on - i. .L'cc.If rf iv uc' sO.Pcu~ r Kc. :~s :-. ',, .'V'L.~ 2.Ol .±o1.91 c VS
~~~-'0rk.2. Ci~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~flo~'_2
£i1& ~ *iw-l~itlX C. t 'K .. .... Lti.:.l~U L: C;! I ,,i oc'iS V . l £
ou lii. 'Citc'S',,,c ,1 .lu.,.c ;,cti.,: ui'.nr : c- .Litl:.iL. t.r.cc u],.ci e _<~~ii S Lu 1b &i.J-icie
cc11 c'_cpoiccttciol (c. tuil novcP :t;\{t.lio'' 2c-lt '.i tJu Ic ()t;_!, Rock& ;i:K5> rKiY'Ii-
-oIo , ciai 1. . CV ovir C Li.e 1 L".t a-6 ,l0,'iO . GATT/CP/38/Add.14
Page 10
Nature et poride - comme les chemins de fer canadiens avaient acceppte
d'accorder une reduction speciale de taril pour le mineral transporte port6
tep Rock a Port At Poraur, dans l'entario, le Gouvernement accepta 'roul acce6-ta.
a^- vcxcs6r 112 .On. - 0 cents per tonne beute pour les cinq pre--ncur 1-:tc cinc
tonnes arutes transportees. A la fin de la campagne n ; >Rort~. A_ rK in- un -toai al:
vaient atreint un total as s *-vaii.t t-irl un a ctn;l
ouvernements n'a pas l'intention 10 '-'ouvi~eLicn. nY 1 s '? ' Llo
e suevantion.lCr ou u - oro,.- ccttc. - ,uvv; r
9.066 dollar. a ete voter ooi <' o 1L2' 3v'.C v oi o.Evr sW- g v,_6
:~~~~~~~~ L U2S v F 1 . C3 C i "t._ e ! 'wi'.wi, r1 ,c, 1 . i.:.; (2 U
rd doncle 1950-51.- r iSIsu. - uLcart . ccor. oc3u iv5O-51
a estre suovention hora o .c;: a.r,.ce .ct,- aubv:tion
e steep Rock a ete conside-o~fI .U J,., 1O'<.Vb ':, -c' ~OCi Ct
duction a pu commerner plus tot.. -;ro.|iic~il S.o ''..:u zo..nmrccs; J'tot.
effects pre cis de cette- ,w1 v ' PL? ' $:i -"1 1 ' i X X, lu S t s, . t,
Ii in ~t couo~oLi ca- ms-ibl CJ tV!j 1j1-- 1-; oI &;-s pl-J-is ciKuo
LOUrU co ii. -~~frL'c~L u'n LcotvC Lau~, cause Lnll, en-~ t
aUSSi i.TpOit-Jt t:;3.USi riclh_ 'auro,,it &:. - ilj; '' J.Oi-aia la
~~~~~~~~ iS e-o" !2 ~L
)lUl, ,rrluo _ _ . ats-
Unis.
~ ~~wt |
GATT Library | pf857nt8788 | Subventions. Notifications Reqiuises en Vertu de L'article XVI et de la Decision des Parties Contractantes en Date du 2 Mars 1950 | Accord General sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce, November 29, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 29/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.18 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pf857nt8788 | pf857nt8788_90300237.xml | GATT_141 | 164 | 1,042 | ACCORD GENERAL SUR
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS
ET LE COMMERCE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add. 18
29 November 1950
FRENCH
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
PARTILES CONTRACTANTES
S U B V E N T I O N S
NOTIFICATIONS REQIUISES EN VERTU DE L'ARTICLE XVI
ET DE LA DECISION DES PARTIE S CONTRACTANTES EN
DATE DU 2 MARS 1950
Les communications suivantes ont ere reçues:
1) Du Bresil, en date du 21 novembre:
"Les dispositions actuellement en vigueur au Bresil en
vue d'encourager la production de certains produits
n'entravent on rien les echanges internationaux et des
lors ne tombent pas sous le coup des dispositions de
I'Article XVI. "
2) De la Republique Dominicaine, en date du 17 novembre:
"La Republique Dominicaine n'accorde ni ne maintient
aucune subvention qui ait directement ou indirectement
pour effet d'accroítre les exportations ou de reduire
les importations".
5) De Haïti, en date du 21 novembre:
"Le Gouvernement Hoition n'a accorde ni 'no maintient aucune
pubvention du genre du celles prevues a l'article XVI." |
GATT Library | qr476yq8244 | Subventions. Notifications Requises en Vertu de L'article XVI de L'accord General et de la Decision des Parties Contractantes du 2 Mars 1950. : Notification adressee par Cuba | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 29, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 29/09/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.15 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qr476yq8244 | qr476yq8244_90300234.xml | GATT_141 | 665 | 4,417 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP/58/Add. 15
TARIFFS AND TRADE 29 September 1950
FRIENCH: ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
SUBVENTIONS
NOTIFICATIONS REQUISES EN VERTU DE
L'ARTICLE XVI DE L'ACCORD GENERAL ET DE
LA DECISION DES PARTIES CONTRACTANTES DU 2 MARS 1950
Notification adressee par Cuba
A. BASES JURIDIQUES
La subvention a l'industrie textile actuellement en vigueur
dans la Republique de Cuba a ete institute en vertu des Decrets Presiden-
tiels Nos 1093 et 1005 de 1949, dont le premier a ete ulterieurement
modifie par le Decret Presidentiel No. 2461 de 1950. Le Decret Presiden-
tiel No, 1093 de 1949 a rendu obligatoire l'apposition, sur tout tissu
import ou d'origine national, de timbres d'identification d'une valeur
de six centavos l'un, a raison d'un timbre par peso ou fraction de peso,
et en fonction de la valour de la merchandise.
La regle generale precited, applicable a tous les tissue, com-
porte une exception relative aux sacs importes ou produits sur le territoire
national et destines uniquement a contenir les produits agricoles du pays.
B. MODALITES D'ADMINISTRATION ET D'ATTRIBUTION DE LA SUBVENTION
Les sommes percues par le moyen du timbre d'identification des
tissus imports ou de fabrication nationale, selon la procedure decrite
ci-dessus, sont versees la Direction Generale du Comptabilite et a la
Tresorerie Generale de la Republique, du Ministere de l'Economie, et vont
a un fonds special denonme "FONDO TEXTIL DE ANTICIPOS REINTEGRABLES"
(Fonds textile d'avances remboursables), et les sommes en question sont
mises a la disposition d'un organism paritaire de caraere autonome,
mais qui depend du Ministere du Travail et a qui en incombe la distribution
au benefice de l'industrie national des textiles, selon les regles constituees
par le Decret Presidentiel No. 1005 de 1949 qui reglemente le fonctionnement du
Fonds. Le Conseil d'Admiinistration, organe directeur du Fonds, est compose
de rep resentants du Gouvrnement, des fabricants de tissus. hationaux, des
importntsurs de tiasus et, de- rep, sentence, des mildeux Uars.ets.
Le Conseil Administration est habilite a etudier et a determiner
les cas ou il y a lieu d'accorder la subvention aux fabricants de tissus et
a fixer le montant de l'aide economique equitable a octroyer, compte tenu
du cout de la maind'oeuvre at la reduction de ce poste qui est necessaire
pour obtenir, sur le marche national, des prix de concurrence pour le
produit en question.
La subvention vise egalement a permettre aux fabricants de reduire
leurs couts en eliminant la main-d'oeuvrc inutile, le Fonds dans ce das
acordant aux travailleurs deplaces des prestations raisonnableo qui, bien
qu'elles ne representent pas l'integralite de leur salaire, leur assurent
neanmoins un niveau de vie decent jusqu'au moment ou la situation economique
de l'industrie leur permet de reprendre leur activity habituelle ou de
trouper a s'employer dans d'autres branches do la production nationale. GATT/CP/58/Add .155
Page 2
Enfin- la subvention joue egalement le role d'un regulateur
econoumique lorsquc, a raison de la saturation du marche, les fabricants
nationaux de textiles se voient dans la necessite do reduire ou d'arreter
leur production habituelle pendant une periode raisonnable a l'effet
d'ecouler les stocks accumules, Dans de tels cas, le fonds verse aux
travailleurs les sommes necessaires pour lecur conserver un pouvoir d'achat
qui corresponde a leur niveau de vie.
C. RESULTATS OBTENUS
Bien que la subvention a l'industrie nationale des textiles,
accordee dans les conditions susindiquee n'ait pas resolu tous les
probleme: elle a neanmoins permis a cette industri de sumonter la crise
economique grave qu'elle traversa au cours du premier somestre de 1949
et qui ontraina la formeture de la quasi-totalite des usines et le deplace-
ment do leurs ouvriers. En realite, cette nosuroe. d'urgence pribe par le
Gouvernement de Cuba, dans le cadre de l'Accord General sur les Tarifs
et le Commerce, a permis a l'industrie textile de survivre nonobstant la
faible protection douanierc dont elle jouit, dans l'espoir qu'une fois
ebene une protection tarifaiire satisfaisante, elle sera en mesure de se
developper naturellement sur des bases plus solides et definitives.
La Havane, le 30 aout 1950. |
GATT Library | xn297rv2753 | Subventions. Notifications Requises en Vertu de L'article XVI de L'accord General et le la Decision des Parties Contractantes du 2 Mars 1950. : Communication adressee par la France | Accord General sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce, October 12, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization), Parties Contractantes, and Contracting Parties | 12/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP/58/Add.16 and GATT/CP/58/Add.13/Rev.1*GATT/CP/14-18 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xn297rv2753 | xn297rv2753_90300235.xml | GATT_142 | 910 | 5,814 | ACCORD GENERAL SUR LES TARIFS RESTRICTED LIMITED B GATT/CP/58/Add.16
12 octobre 1950
DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE FRENCH
ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
SUBVENTIONS
NOTIFICATIONS REQUISES EN VERTU DE
L'ARTICLE XVI DE L'ACCORD GENERAL ET LE
LA DECISION DES PARTIES CONTRACTANTES DU 2 MARS 1950
Communication adressee par la France
"L'article XVI de l'Accord general sur les Tarifs douaniers
et le Commerce prescrit aux Parties. Contractantes de faire connaitre
l'importance et la nature des subventions accordees par elles, at qui
ont pour effet d' accroitre les exportations ou de reduire les importa-
tions,. Bien qu'il estime que les measures prises par lui en-matiere de
subventions ne rentrent pas dans les categories visees par l' article XVI,
le Gouvernement francais a neanmoins tenu a porter lesdites measures a
la connaissance des Parties Contractantes, de maniere a, leur permettre
de so faire une opinion, en toute connaissance de cause. Tel est
l'objet de la note ci-jointe, que j'ai l'honneur de vous remettre." GATT/CP/58/Add. 16
Page 2.
MEMORANDUM FRANCAIS
SUR LES SUBVENTIONS
En dehors des subventions accordecs a titre particulier et tout a
fait occasionnel aux agriculteurs dont ls exploitations ont ete detruites
par un fleau at de cells qui sont attributes, comme dans la plupart des pays,
on vue do stimuler le progres technique et la recherche en matiere agricole
ou industriclle, l'Etat francais n'accorde une aide effective, directe ou in-
directe, a la production, que dans un certain nombre de cas limaites enumeres
at decrits ci-apres.1)
Quelques produits dont l'obtention ost ostimee indispensable a la
satisfaction des besoins nationaux, ou don't le marche a ete organism bien
avant la guerre dans le cadre d'un plan general de politique economique, be-
neficiant d'une garanti de prix; d'autres, qui constituent generalement une
source importante sinon unique de prosperite pour une region donnee, et qu'il
n'a pas ete estine opportun de proteger par un droit de douano, obtiennent un
soutien financier direct, parfois nomme "prime de componsation douanieere",
deo la part des Pouvoirs Publics.
Telles sont, essentiellement, les doux formes sous lesquellos se
manifeste l'aide quq l'Etat apporte on France a la production, aide qui no
parait pas, pour les raisins exposecs plus loin, rentrer dans la categories des
subventions decritos at a l'article XVI de l'Accord general sur les Tarifs doua-
niers et le Commerce, mais qu'il a ete jurfe bon, toutefois, de porter a la
connaissance des Parties Contractantes.
I. - .PRODUITS DONT LES PRIX SONT GARANTIES PAR L'IETAT.
A) Principe de la garantie de prix.
Un decret de base determine, pour las donrees essentielles (ble,
betterave, lait), les conditions de fixation de prix pour quatre camipagnes
(rendoment forfaitire, elements du prix de revient, taxes).
Un arrete annuel fixe le montant des elements constitutifs du prix
de revient.
Un arrete annuel fixed lo prix, compte tenu du prix de revient, des
elements constitutifs.
B) Produits soumis au regime de garantie de prix.
Le texte de base est lo decret du 22 mars 1947, assurant la garantie
du prix du ble pour les campagnes 1947 - 1948 a 1951 - 1952 incluse.
1)Il y a lieu de mentionner a part, et sculement pour memoire, car clle est
en voie de disparition, l'aide accordee en vue d'abaisser le prix a im-
portation de certains charbons strangers. GATT/CP/58/Add. 16
Page 3.
Betterave.
Le texte de base est le decret du 30 avril 1946 modifie par les de-
crets du 23 fevricr 1948 et ler decembre 1949.
Alcool.
Un principe de parite avee le prix du sucre est etabli par l'article
XXVI de la Loi du ler about 1924.
Chicoree.
Un arrete annuel fixe le prix de la chicoree on affectant d'un coef-
ficient le prix de la betterave.
Il.s'agit, pour ces quatre produits, d'un marche organise par 1'Etat,
at dont la garantie de prix est un complement indispensable.
Oleeaginoux.
Decret du 25 juillet 1947 : Le prix des oleagineux est determine par
reference au prix du colza, leqel ost fonction du prix du ble homologue par
le decret annuel fixant ceui-ci.
Dans le cas des cleagincoux, la garantie de prix est double d'une
obligation d'emploi; cette double mosure a pour effet de maintenir, en France,
ume production assurant une satisfaction minima des besoins metropolitains.
Lait.
Les textes de base sont les decrets des 23 fevrier et 27 septembre
1948 et 10 septembre 1949.
En application de cette legislation, le prix du lait est fixe en
fonction du lieu de production. Cette mesure a pour effect de normaliser les
conditions du marche interieur et, plus particulierement, de maintenir entre
les differentes regions productrices les ecarts de prix dans des limits rai-
sonnables.
II, PRODUITS BENEFICIANT D'UN SOUTIEN FINANCIER DIRECT.
DE LA PART DES POUVOIRS PUBLICS
Un fonds textile a ete etabli par la loi du 15 septembre 1943, don't
les resources permittent d'encourager un certain nombre de productions : le
lin, la soic et le chanvre beneficient de cette forme de subvention. Pour le
lin et le chanvre, la subvention a ete institute en vue de favoriser l'emploi
de textiles nationaux qui constituent iue source de prosperitei importante pour
les regions productrices.
En ce qui concerns la soic, la subvention a uniquement pour objet
d'assurer le mairntien d'une production qui ne saurait vivre sans protection et
qui interesse au plus haut point une region particulierement desheritee par
ailleurs.
Ces dernieres subventions no paraissent pas susceptibles d'exercer
une influence sensible sur les importations, etant donne le peu d'importance
de la production francaise. Leur effot sur les exportations semble egalemernt
negligeable. |
GATT Library | bg676ws2987 | Suggestions for standard practices under the administration of import licence and exchange controls to minimize commercial unqertainties and hardships : Statement submitted by the United States Delegation | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, October 10, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/10/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/8 and GATT/CP.5/1-13,CP.5/1/Rev.1-4, CP.2/Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bg676ws2987 | bg676ws2987_90330086.xml | GATT_142 | 861 | 5,818 | RESTRICTED LIMITED C
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.5/8
TARIFFS AND TRADE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUGGESTIONS FOR STANDARD PRACTICES UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATION OF IMPORT LICENCE AND EXCHANGE
CONTROLS TO MINIMIZE COMMERCIAL UNQERTAINTIES AND
Statement submitted by the United States Delegation
It is one of the prime objectives of the GATT and of the Inter-
national Monetary Fund that quantitative restrictions and exchange controls
should eventually be eliminated, and exception is made only for emergency
periods and specially justified conditions. Unfortunately, however, con-
ditions have not yet allowed many countries to give up these methods of
direct controls of their import trade, and the exigencies of the rearmament
program might further postpone the date of their withdrawal. For so long
as they are maintained, therefore, it seems important to reduce the undue
uncertainties and hardships to merchants resulting from the varying and un-
predictable operation of such trade controls. It is believed that this can
be done without weakening the assential effectiveness of the measures of
control.
Such uncertainties and hardships can be minimized by the general
adoption of the best present practices of those governments which have given
most attention to their methods of conrating these trade controls. In effect,
such adoption would constitute merely a fuller implementation of the general
the traders, the general adoption of such practices would minimize the accumu-
lation of international commercial debts, and would avoid abrust interruptions
in the flow of commodities between countries.
As a basic for discussion, the United States suggests the following
that any foreign exchange necessary for payment will be obtainable when due.
When both import licences and exchange permits are required, the operation of
the two requirements should be co-ordinated. If more than one rate of exchange
applies in payment for imports, the import licence or exchange permit should fix
the type of exchange which shall in the settlement for the particular
transaction.
2. Any additional or more burdens conditions on importation should
not apply to shipments of goods already en route from point of origin in the
supplying country at the time the changed is announced or, alternatively, which
arrive within 30 days thereafter, at the option of the government.
3. To minimize under hardshi to merchants, goods preven to have been
covered by continued order at the timed the change was announced, and not
marketable elsewhere without applicable loss, or already for or covered by
an irr letter of credit, should receive special consideration on an
individual case basis, provided their delivery can be completed within a specified
Such except transitienal shipments may be counted against any specific
import queta or exchange allocation that may be established for the particular
class of goods. This practice is to apply to goods on route (or delivered within
30days ), provided for in point 2, well as to these individual hardship cases. GATT/CP.5/8 page 2
4. The administrative formalities in connection with the issuance
of import licences or exchange permits should be designed to allow action
upon applications within a reasonably shourt period. Such a licence or
permit should be valid for a sufficient period to allow reasonably for the
.
preparation and delivery of the shipments, taking into account the character
of the commodity and the conditions of transport from the country of orogin ,
and should be subject to extension unusual or uncontrellable circum-
stances prevent its utilization within the origin period.
5. Under a system involving the fixing of specific quotes for par-
ticular classes of goods or of allocations of exchange in payment for them,
any period that may be set within which applications for such quotas or
allocations need to be received should be sufficient to allow for the ex-
change of communications with likely foreign suppliers and the conclusion
of purchase contracts.
6. When foreign products subject to quantitative limitations are
apportioned oimporters largely in the light of their past participation
in the trade, a reasonable share - up to say 15-20 per cent of the total
adminissible quantity - should be available for qualified and financially
but in which a substantial continuing flow of trade is actually being
authorized, should be treated like other products subject to quantitative
limitation, and the subject to similar allocations and administrative practices.
8. If assurance regarding the issue of an import licence is required
as a condition of consular legalization of the shipping documents in the
country of expertation, a communication from the prespective importer giving
9. Customs officials should be authorized to allow reasonable tolerance
for variations in the quantity or value individual shipments as delivered
from that sufficiefied in the prior import authorisation, in accordance with
the character ofthe product involved and other extenuating circumstances.
10. In onse of foreign exchange shortage payments for foreign products
already delivered, which have complied with any pertinent requirements in
.
time of shipments, should ordinarily have prior claim over now
orders upon the exchange availabilities, or loast should have a definite
providing funds for goods already licenced for importation but not yet de-
livered.
It is suggested that a practicable method for the uoution of
these standards by the Contracting Parties be in the form of a report in - |
GATT Library | kc214pv8216 | Summary Record of Fourth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Saturday 25 February, 1950, at 10-30 am | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 25, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 25/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR/4 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kc214pv8216 | kc214pv8216_90270079.xml | GATT_142 | 2,904 | 18,750 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE 25 February 19 9-t'19,50
ND TRADE :: :ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SM--RECORD OF TM~ FORT v7ETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Saturday 25 F.ebruary, 1950, at 10-30 am.:
Chairman: Fon L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Report on exceptions to the Rule of
Non-Discrimination Article XIV, 1 (g).
2. Budget Report for 1949-1950.
3: Distribution of documents.
4. Derestriction of documents.
5. Requesto of the Director-General cf :
0: : N$SCO ,. , f ,
:. Retort on Ceptiens to the Rule of Non Discriminatin -
ArtcleXV. I LS). (EATT/CP/39 ad ~SECRET/0P13 7.
The CHAIRMAN referring to Article XIV, paragraph 1 (6)i
which provides that the Contracting Parties shall report not
later than 1 1aroh, 1950, on any action still being taken by
contracting parties under provision of the Article, prop sed
that the required report should be submitted and approved not
later than closing date of the Session. The variation from
the strict provisions of the Agreement was necessary because
some time would be needed for studying the information assembled
in the drafb prepared by the Secretariat and for editing the
report,
The E.CUTIVE SECRETARY, on the invitation of the CI:IRYAN,
explai,ed the draft report circulated under symbol SECRET/CP/3j
and the circumstances in which it was prepared. The Secretariat
had issued a questiaimre on 7 October, 1949, to the contracting
parties and the governments which participated in the negotiations
at Annecy. The questiobire was sent to the latter governments
because, at the time of issue, there was a possibility that all
thcse governments woult have heoome contracting parties by the
time when the report was examined, or very soon thereafter. It
seemed therefore advisable to obtain information relating to
aoceding governments in advance4 rthermore, it was believed
that the value of a report cn discrimination would be enhanced GATT/CP.4/SR/4 X
Page 2
by broadening the scope to cover all countries engaged in the
negotiatio.s Since the report covered several acceding
governmen,s) it seemed appropriate to circalJte t[ to them as
well asot. contracting parties although normally the distribution
" secret documents was restricted to contracting parts.d The
EEXCUTEV. SECRETARY requested an xop st factopa)prov lJby the
Contracting Parties of the procedure adopted..
With regard to the form of the report, he explained that the
draft circulated contained an annex describing thie mport
restrictions of individual countries in the form of msumaries
of the answers to questions 2 and 3 of thq %uestnnaire. The
full text of the answers to queio ,ns 4 and 5 were issued
separately (SECRET/CP/4, 5sand 5/A.1el). The United Kingdom
Government had supplied severac oopies of their replseb and these
had been distributed in SECRET/CP/ .I Texts of the answe s'to
questions 2 a d:3 were available at the Secretariat officeofPr
consultation.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY took the opportunity to thank the
International Monetary Fund for its valuable help in thereizp-r-
ation of the dra t:report, and referred ao :1 to the extended
oc-opareti n-with that agency which ensued from his and the
Deputy Executive Secretary's visit toaW1shington. ThF Pund had
also sent a membeo ^f its Operations Department to Gene aibofsre
the opening of the Session with a view to co-ordinating t ':tasks
of the two organizations in the drafting of their srepective
reports relating to the restriction ca imports and exchange
restricoont.ise:
Referring to document SECRET/CP/7 the EXECU IVELRSECPETARY
pointed out that this report had net b)en called for by the Con-
tracting Parties but had been prepared on the initiative of the
Secreta.iat, The Secretariat while pringre G the report under
ArtiXle 'IV had had opportunity to examine information relevant
to the operations of Article XII, and it was felt that the report
would be useful to the Contracting Parties in their consideration
of the Article XIV report and also for such general voew rf the
present position as the Contracting Parties might undertake at
the present Session.
Mr, HOLMES (United Kingdom) proposed that thn Coftracting
Parties take note of the explanation given by the Executive
Secretary. He requested that copies of the answer to the GATT/CP. 4/SR/4
Page 3
Questiomaire supplied by his delegation be circulated only to
the existing contracting parties. His delegation would not be
able to discuss the contents of the draft presented by the
Secretariat, in detail, until they had had an opportunity to study
it more closely.
In reply to a question of Mr. SUETENS (Belgium), the CHAIRMAN
said that representatives should at this stage limit their dis-
cussion to the statement made by the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, and not
discuss the substance. of the reports.
Mr. SUETENS said that his Delegation had noticed in its
preliminary examination of the reports that the discussion of.
consequences of discrimination was confined to countries applying
discrimination. In his opinion, the reports to be complete,
should also refer to the effect of discrimination on other
countries which might or might not be applying discrimination
themselves. For example, Belgium was a country which was not
applying. discriminatory restrictions, but which suffered from
discriminatory policies of other countries.
In reply the CHAIRMAN drew attention to the fifth question
of the questionmaire, which asked contracting parties to describe
the effects which they believed discriminatory import restrictions
imposed either by them or by other countries had upon volume and
pattern of their export trade. As the reports were based on the
answers received, the lack of reference in the reports to such
facts, probably meant that a reply had not beenreceived to the
question.
Mr. SUETENS (Belgium) stated that his Government had not yet
replied to this question because they had expected to find some
alleviation to the effect of discrimination in the course of
negotiations with other countries concerned. However, his
delegation would supply information on that point and he hoped
it could be issued as a supplement to the present report.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) said that although he felt the
report was satisfactory as a whole, a cursory first reading of
the summaries had revealed one or two points relating to the
position of New Zealand which had a slightly different impli-
cation from the complete contents of their replies. He would,
therefore, request the EXECUTTVE SECRETARY to make arrangements
for distributing copies of the full text of the replies. The CHAIRMAN replied that full texts of the replies would
be circulated. He also emphasized that this item, the most
important one of the Session, should be taken up as early as
possible. It was hoped that a Working Party could start soon
after 6 March when the financial experts of certain delegations
would have arrived.
In conclusion the CHAIRMAN proposed that the Contracting
Parties take note of the statement made by the EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY and that the Secretariat be authorized to circulate
the secret documents in question to all contracting parties and
acceding governments with the exception of SECRET/CP/b which
would be supplied to the existing contracting parties only
2.. Budget-Report for 1949-1950 (GTTT/ CP/45).
At the invitation of the CHAIRMAN, the DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY introduced the report which attempted to give as clear
an account as possible of the expenditure in 1948/49, of the cash
position at the present and of the prospect for 1950.
The expenditure for 1949 had reached figures slightly in
excess of the estimates and the deficit would have to be met out
of the 1950 contributions. The calculations made in the Report
were based on the assumption that all contracting parties, and
Annecy participating governments, paid their contributions for
1949. If all the amount due for that year were not received by
the secretariat the deficit would naturally be greater. It is
recommended that all outstanding contributions be paid before 15th
March 1950. The absence of a cash reserve would have caused in-
convenient crises if the ICITO had not been able to advance funds
to the Contracting Parties in 1949 and the first quarter of 1950,
After April 1st the cash reserve of the ICITO will practically be
exhausted and the operations of the Secretariat would be severely
ampered if a substantial part of the 1950 contributions was not
received before or soon after 1st of April 1950. It is therefore
recommended that the contracting parties should pay their contri-
butions or a substantial part before or soon after that dates,and
that Annecy/acceding governments should secure the necessary authority to
send in their contributions as soon as they becme contracting
parties.
As regards the expenditure for 1950 adjustments might need to
be made in the estimates approved at the last session to make pro-
vision for a longer duration of the September tariff negotiations,
The holding of a Fifth Session in 1950 and the increased charge for
U.N. services, Part of this additional expenditure could be met
by savings on certain items and drawings on the provision for unfore-
seen expenditure. As regards the balance, it is suggested that the
new acceding governments be asked to contribute to the expenditure
of the tariff negotiations and preparations thereof in the same way
as the Annecy acceding governments contributed to the expenses of
last year's negotiations. An addition source of income would be
the contribution that Indonesia would probably be asked to pay in 1950 GATT/CP.4/SR/4
Page 5
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Chile) referring to Annex 4 of the Report
informed the meeting that the contribution due from his Govern-
ment would be paid within a few days.
Mr. DJUMHNA (Indonesia) said that his Government was pre-
pared to contribute to the Budget for 1950 according to established
rules of the Contracting Parties. He would discuss the matter
with the Secretariat directly, and would inform the Contracting
Parties later.
Mr. BOCKSTAL (Netherlands) drew attention to the fact that
the scale of contributions for 1950 had not been definitely
approved at Annecy. It had been agreed then that the matter
might be further discussed during this Session.
The CHAIRMAN replied that although the question had been
left over at Annecy owing to the press of time with the possibility
of reopening the discussion at his Session, it would be prefer-
able not to if no great disadvantage were found in the existing
scale of contributions. He therefore inquired whether the
Czechoslouak representative, who had prepared a new text at
Annecy, wished to reopen the discussion at this Session.
Dr. BEPNES (Czechoslovakia) said that his delegation had no
intention to press discussion at this Session, but would reserved
its right to reopen the question in regard to the Budget for the
next year.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Czechoslovak representative, and
said that the question could be reconsidered when the Budget for
l951 was discussed at a later Session.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) stated it would not be possible
for his Government to pay its 1950 contribution before April
1st owing to the late commencement of the fiscal year, but this
would be paid shortly after that date.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the report be formally adopted
with the reservation that delegations might revert to the ques-
tions before the end of the Session, The contribution of
Indonesia could be discussed by the contracting Parties at a
later meeting.
The representative of Turkey, Italy and the German Federal
Republic, whilst foreseeing no difficulty in meeting the con-
tributions fixed, wished to reserve the positions of their
respective governments for the present time.
The report was approved with the understanding that the
question of the Budget for 1950 might be reverted to before the
closing of the Fourth Session. GATT/CP.4
Page 6.
3. Distribution if Ducuments (GATT/CP.4/8).
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY introduced the Secretariat Note
on the subject and outlined its contents. He explained that
the purpose of the proposal was to fomulate a consistent
policy and also to achieve economy.
Mr. GRADY (United States) referring to the first para-
graph on page 2 suggested that the United Nations and its
specialized agencies should be included in the suggested
distribution.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY stated that, the distribution
to interested organisations had been omitted due to an over-
sights. All documents were regularly supplied to the United
Nations and the International Monetary Fund, Other agencies
were supplied on a selective basis.
Mr. KEMP (Canada) said that appropriate arrangements
would be made in order to arrange for the transmission of
documents to Canada through a European address:
The proposals contained in the document. GATT/CP.4/8
were approved with the additions referred to above.
4. De-restriction of Documents (GATT/CP.4/4).
Mr. GRADY (United States) presented the proposal on
behalf of his Delegation. The proposal was unanimously
Mr. LECUYER (France) expressed the opinion that the
Contracting Parties were committed by the agreement reached at
the preceding session to consider the impact of high tariffs
on the free flow of educational, scientific and cultuural
material. The Contracting Parties had, therefore, undertaken
to deal with such material at the next round of tariff
negotiations. Referring to a letter sent by the Director-
General of the UNESCO to the representatives to the Session,
he proposed that representatives should make close contact
with the delegates of their respective countries to the
UNESCO Conference to be held shortly in Geneva.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought that the French
representative appeared to have unduly emphasized the obli-
gation of the contracting parties. Great doubt was enter-
tained by various delegations at Annecy regarding the GATT/CP.4/SR4
Page 7.
suitability of using tariff reductions as a means for
fostering the free flow of such material. The Contracting
Parties at Annecy had only agreed to give sympathetic
consideration to proposals for the furthering of the
objectives of the UNESCO. Whilst it could be assumed
that most countries would give assistance to these
objectives, it was doubtful whether it would be possible
to deal specially with such material at the tariff
negotiations.
Mr. KEMP (Canada) agreed with the representative of
the United Kingdom that the so-called unanimous agreement
reached at Annecy mentioned by the representative of
France was merely an understanding among the representa-
tives acting in an unofficial capacity, as experts rather
than governmental representatives. There was no official
decision taken by the Contracting Parties. Moreover, the
subject was complicated since it related not only to the
question of customs tariffs,, but to balance-of-paydents
restrictions, copyrights, cartels and even censorship
laws which were outside the scope of the General Agreement.
Most delegations did not have experts in all these fields,
and it would be fitting that the matter should be dealt
with by the UNESCO which had not only a wider scope of
activities, but also a broader membership.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) also argued that the drawing
up of the draft agreement at Annecy did not involve any
commitments on the part of the contracting parties. If
the draft were approved at the UNESCO Conference the
question would not be raised again at meetings of the
Contracting Parties. If not, the attention of the
Contracting Parties could then be drawn to conclusions
reached at Annecy, that is, educational and scientific
material could be considered during tariff negotiations,
under normal procedures. He would therefore propose
waiting for the outcome of the UNESCO Conference.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) shared the views of the
representative of France. Although representatives at
Annecy were not acting in an official capacity, neverthe-
less, there was a unanimous opinion on the question. The
contracting parties had, in his view, a moral obligation
to foster the conclusion of such an agreement, even if
formal approval should be reached at the UNESCO Conference. GATT/CP 4/SR/4
Page 8
In view of the very special nature of educational and scientific
material it might not always be practicable to treat it on the
same basis as other commodities figuring in ordinary tariff
negotiations. The best course to follow seemed to be for
individual representatives to recommend to their colleagues at
the UNESCO Conference that they support the agreement, and to
advise them that the Annecy draft resulted from a compromise
between varying views and was the best possible solution.
Mr. LECUYER (France), in reply to the representative of the
United Kingdom, said that although it was true that no formal
commitment had been made by the contracting parties, a promise
had, however, been given by each individual contracting party to
examine the draft and to promote its adoption. As for the
remarks made by the representative of New Zealand, he felt that
even though the UNESCO Conference adopted the agreement, the
contracting parties could still do much to facilitate its imple-
mentation by dealing with such material in their negotiations.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) said that from the UNESCO point of
view reliance on the Contracting Parties seemed to be appropriate
because of the fear of duplications of work, and the discussions
which took place at Annecy were much appreciated by that agency,
Although the question was certainly complicated, the effort made
at Annecy had undoubtedly been helpful to the UNESCO. He Would
propose that the question be retained on the Agenda and suggested
that representatives to the contracting parties should report
favourably on this solution to their colleagues at the UNESCO
Conference.
The CHAIRMAN concluded that there was nothing to be added to
the letter of last September from the Chairman of the Contracting
Parties to the Director-General of the UNESCO, but that the matter
should be retained on the Agenda in case further discussion were
called for as a result of events at the UNESCO meeting.
This was agreed and the Meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | bx846fp3127 | Summary Record of special Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England, on Friday 24 November 1950 at 3 p.m | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, November 25, 1950 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) | 25/11/1950 | official documents | ICITO/1/30, ICITO/1/28-37, ICITO/1/W.1-4, and ICITO/1/SR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bx846fp3127 | bx846fp3127_90180046.xml | GATT_142 | 959 | 6,100 | INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE
RESTRICTED ICITO/1/36
25 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUMMARY RECORD OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE INTERIM COMMISSION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England,
on Friday 24 November 1950 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. E. Wyndham White (Executive Secretary)
Representatives present:
Subject discussed: Repayment
Wo
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Tonkin (Australia)
Cassiers (Benelux)
Castro Menezes (Brazil)
Wright (Canada)
Vazna (Czechoslovakia)
Ahmed Fuad (Egypt)
Dawson (El Salvador)
Lecuyer (France)
di Nola (Italy)
Castellanos (Mexico)
Solberg (Norway)
Leckie (United Kingdom)
Weiss (United States)
Repayment of loans from the United Nations
rking Capital Fund.
The CHAIRMAN said that the terms of office of the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of the Executive Committee had expired. It seemed unnecessary at
this meeting to appoint officers of the Executive Committee for a further
term of one year and he therefore suggested that a chairman be nominated
for this meeting only.
Mr. WRIGHT (Canada) seconded by Mr. FUAD (Egypt) nominated the Executive
Secretary. This was approved.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Committee. This meeting had been called in
order to consider the problem which had arisen as a result of the non-
ratification of the Havana Charter and the fact that the ITO did not yet exist.
When the Interim Commission was set up it had been assumed that only a short
period would elapse before the entry into force of the Charter and that the
functions of the Commission would be limited entirely to preparations for the
first Conference. The terms of reference of the Interim Commission made no
provision for a budget to be provided by contributions from member governments.
It had instead been agreed that the expenses would be met from funds loaned
by the United Nations subject to reimbursement. Application had accordingly
been made to the Secretary General and a number of advances agreed to and
taken up. The question of repayment had been considered before by the
Executive Committee and, acting on instructions, the Executive Secretary had
informed the Secretary General that these advances would be reimbursed by the
ITO from its first budget. In view of the delay in the establishment of the
ITO the Secretary General had, upon the request of the Executive Committee,
recommended in 1949 to the General Assembly that the normal two-year period
for the repayment of the 1948 loans be extended by one year. This had ICITO/1/30
page 2
been agreed to, Nonetheless, these loans were becoming due for repayment
during 1951 and it was furthermore almost certain that the first ITO
Conference would not be convened in that year. The representative of the
United Nations had communicated with the Executive Secretary drawing his
attention to the dates for repayment and pointing out that, since it was
unlikely that the first conference of the ITO would take place before July
when the first repayment was due it might be appropriate to explore the
question well in advance of the due dates in order to give some information
to the General Assembly at its current session. The suggestions by the
Secretariat were contained o pages 3 and 4. of document ICITO/1/29.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) referred to the figure of $97,629.44 in paragraph
20 which he assumed included the last authorised advance shown at the top of
the page on which no drawing, had yet been made. He inquired whether, under
the procedure suggested in paragraph 32 (a), the amount owable to the United
Nations would in effect be the estimated total expenditures i.e. $248,860,56.
The CHAIRMAN said that was correct.
Sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (? ), (d) and (e) of paragraph 12 were approved.
Sub-paragraph (f). Mr. LECUYER (France) referred to the last sentence
of this paragraph and inquired what the assistance was that the Executive
Secretary hoped to obtain from the Secretary General.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the situation might arise where the Interim
Commission wished to perform certain services for the Contracting Parties at
a time when the Contracting Parties were unable immediately to reimburse the
Interim Commission and the possibility of short term advances had been con-
sidered as a solution.
In reply to a question from Mr. CASSIERS (Benelux) the CHAIRMAN said
that the letter to the Secretary General would to circulated to members of
the Interim Commission.
Mr. CASTELLANCS (Mexico) said that his Government considered that it
would be difficult in the future to justify the continued existence of the
Interim Commission in view of the present circumstances of uncertainty as to
the establishment of the ITO and he thought that it was important that govern-
ments should be consulted for their opinion on this question.
The CHAIRMAN thought that serious consideration would have to be given by
Governments to the question raised by the Delegate of Mexico but that it would
perhaps be difficult to discuss it at this meeting which had been called at
short notice and for one specific purpose. If the Mexican Government would
communicate its views formally to the Secretariat these would be circulated to
all members of the Executive Committee and a meeting might be called at a
later date specifically to study this problem. The Chairman wished to assure
the Mexican Delegate that there was no question in any event of additional
expenditure being incurred after 1 January 1951, by the Secretariat on behalf
of the Interim Commission.
Mr. CASTELLANOS (Mexico) thanked the Chairman for his remarks.
Sub-paragraph (e) was approved.
The CHAIRMAN said that the letter to the Secretary General would be drawn
up in accordance with the decision of the Executive Committee and circulated
to the Interim Commission.
The meeting ? at 3.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | vb097rn8953 | Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting : Corrigenda | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 21, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/12/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.18/Corr. 1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vb097rn8953 | vb097rn8953_90270146.xml | GATT_142 | 219 | 1,501 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 18/Corr. 1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 21 December 1950
ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING
Corrigenda
Page 3, paragraph 3
Delete the sentence:
"The Canadian Delegation had proposed that it should deal only with
Articles XII to XIV and XVIII and all these articles would, of course, be
suspended when the Havana Charter entered into force."
and substitute the following sentence:
"The permanent committee the Canadian Delegation had proposed
would deal only with Articles XII to XIV and XVIII and other Articles under
Chapter II and the whole of it would be suspended when the Havana Charter
entered into force."
Page 3, paragraph 4
Substitute "had" for "has" in the fourth line from the end.
Page 4, paragraph 1
"of his Government. During the last thirty years national administrations
had moved from questions of law and order to questions of welfare and
development and it was time that questions of development should be dealt with
on an international level."
and substitute the following:
".........of his Government regarding the Charter. During the last
thirty years national administrations had moved from a merely negative
law and order administration to welfare and development administration
and it was time that a similar change in functions was accepted in
international organizations." |
GATT Library | vq918dy0960 | Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England on Friday, 8 December 1950 at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/12/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.18 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vq918dy0960 | vq918dy0960_90270145.xml | GATT_142 | 4,180 | 26,476 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR.18 R.18
TARIFFS AND TRADE 13 December 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England on
Friday, 8 December 1950 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. TONKIN (Australia)
Subject discussed: Item 15 - Arrangements for the Continuing
administration of the General Agreement
(GATT/CP. 5/11) (continued)
Item 15 - Arrangements for the Continuing Administration of the General
Agreement.
Dr. BOTHA (Union of South Africa) said that he had listand with interest
to the arguments in favour of this very important proposal of the Canadian
Delegation and he had also noted from the Canadian representative's opening
remarks that there was no idea of putting into operation the Article XXIX
machinery. Until this became imperative he did not think there was any
need to change the present administration of the Agreement and there was
in any case no provision in the Agreement for setting up such a committee
as proposed by the Canadian Delegation. There were many arguments
against the proposals. The increasing number of contracting parties would
hardly be a problem, since except for a few additional ones during this
year, there would be little change for several years to come. It seemed
unlikely that the problems facing the Contracting Parties would be any more
difficult in the future than thcy had been in the past. Indeed, he con-
sidered that the progress of the Contracting Parties would be retarded if
they were burdened with the totally new problems of the establishment of
an Executive Committee. As to the argument concerning the length of the
sessions and high level representation, he too thought that high level
representation was essential, but the existence of an Executive Committee
would diminish rather than enhance the possibility. It would no longer
be considered necessary, if all the problems were digested before meetings
began, to send high level representatives to the Contracting Parties. On
the Committee itself it was difficult to onvisage that representatives of
sufficiently high level could be spared by their goverments for such a
long period of time. Under any circumstances the staff of such a Committee
would be a heavy burden on governments. When technical questions were
under discussion, experts and advisers would have to be sent and the Committee
would develop almost into an additional session of the Contracting Parties
except that there would be a diminished number of countries represented.
He felt that them was very serious danger of such a Committee becoming
a super body where the activities of all the contracting parties would be
directed by a few. It was very difficult for governments to arrive at
correct decisions without having been present at the discussions leading up
to them, and he Considered the practice of postal voting a very dangerous one.
In addition to the fact that the proposal to be voted on would be almost
meaningless to those countries which did not have the background of the dis-
cussions to guide them, the possibility of amendments was almost ruled out
because of questions of time, distance,circulation of documents, etc. GATT/CP.5/SR.18
page 2
Rather than fortifying the Agreement, this proposal seemed to him to
carry grave; dangers of undermining its foundations As operated at the
present time, all contracting parties had the opportunity to understand, the
problems, express their views and attend all discussions, and all their
representatives had ample opportunity to gain experience during the course
of the meetings. The Contracting Parties had hitherto provided the forum
which was the strength of the Agreement, and if this forum were limited so
also would its strength be diminished.
Dr. BOTHA referred to the cost of the maintenance of such a Committee
and the secretariat which it would require, and also to the additional cost
to governments of the delegations they would d have to send.
In any event, the proposal made by the Canadian Delegation was too far-
reaching to be dealt with in haste. The various questions of detail would
have to be carefully worked out before; any decision could be arrived at,
He referred to the special inter-sessional machinery which had been established
at Annecy for the purposes of Articles XI to XIV and XVIII and to the fact
that it had never been used,. It was, consequently, doubtful that a
permanent body would operate to any effect unless it were given such powers
as to endanger the operation of the Agreement.
To summarise, he feared that, far from promoting the good of the
Agreement, a Committee as proposed. would be detrimental; that officials
would lose the experience they had gained in the course of the meetings of
the Contracting Parties, and would lose access to the opportunity of fully
understanding the various problems; he feared delegating powers which
properly belonged to the Contracting Parties and he also feared that a small
group might not understand the problems of all countries and that the position
of the smaller nations in particular would suffer. For all these reasons
he felt that Governments needed ample opportunity to consider these Pro-
posals. and no decision should be reached before the next session.
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) considered it of the utmost
importance to shorten the meetings of the Contracting Parties, for the
reasons set forth in the Canadian proposal. It was only possible to send
qualified personnel to these meetings if they were neither too frequent nor
too long, and the only solution was to have an agenda more fully prepared
before the meeting began. He intended no reflection on the Secretariat,
but with so small a staff it was impossible to produce adequately detailed
reports on all the items of the Agenda. His delegation, therefore, supported
-the Canadian proposal. He agreed that the Committee should be a small one,
but he also called attention to the fact that too much should not be expected
of it. It would probably be composed of representatives of the contracting
parties already at the headquarters of the GATT and with their own work to do.
They could hardly be specialists in Contracting Parties matters. He
therefore felt it should have tho character of a Board of Directors and that
it was particularly the Secretariat that should be strengthened and from whom
should be expected the greater amount of work. As to the question of the
powers of this Committee it was clear that the power of decision should
remain with the Contracting Parties as a whole. There were, however,
certain routine matters which might well be disposed of without waiting for
a session of the Contracting Parties. A possible solution that the Working
Party might consider, which might also meet to some (extent the views expressed
by the South African delegate, would be to envisage a second body. This
second body would be in effect the Contracting Parties but represented by
delegates already stationed in embassies or legations at the headquarters
of the GATT, For decisions on more routine matters, meetings of this body
could be called. More important matters would of course be reserved for the
main meetings of the Contracting Parties, of which there should not be more
than one or two a year. It followed from this that the headquarters should
be established in a city where all contracting parties were represented. GATT/CP.5/SR.18
page 3
In any case, too much should not be expected from the intersessional machinery,
whether one or two bodies. The main task should fall on the Secretariat
and the first question to be considered. therefore, was how to enable the
Secretariat to undertake more preparatory work then it had hitherto done,
He suggested also that the Working Party should look into the question
of ratification of the Agreement by the Contracting Parties, since it was
difficult to talk of continuing administration in circumstances where only
one or two countries had ratified.
The CHAIRMAN expressed the pleasure of the entire meeting at seeing
Mr. DESAI (India) back and hoped he was fully recovered from his recent
illness.
Mr. DESALI (India) thanked the Chairman. He went on to say that his
Government had not, in their preliminary examination, come to any decision
on the Canadian proposal. They had, of course, considered the question
in the expectation of the not too distant ratification of the Havana
Charter and it had seemed unneccessary to set up a Standing Committee at
this time. The Canadian Delegation had proposed that it should deal only
with articles XII to XIV and XVIII and all these articles would, of course,
be suspended when the Havana Charter entered into force. However, the t1e
declaration made by the- United Statovernment altered the'e e situation.
Although he had no instructions hought that t t.this Govennmont would agree
in principle, in thght of t on theclaration, to the setting up of somef soom
sort of permanmmitteeninitzto dth suil ;,uch matteses asret fo-th in the
aanadiAn proposale g Hc wreed "ith the Uningdom4.n%.o and other speakers
What Working Party should examinetht 'ssion, in more detail,,'il, the
question of thp scoQectionticonsation, etc. of such a committee ittcoand
submit a report eo th, session so that Governments cvne-woule hav. a
change to examine toblem in detail and instruct their delegations.:.u.if.
Hcrevor, another mrising out of ng, .o) the Unites State:3 declaration
cax>.edmuch anxietyhat d t,.-. wasathe st tdecisioneoegiod rc arcing the
avzia.er. He referre do tc e rly y?e optv which re.cmended, amongmorg,
other things, .that the Unitedestshould become a member of the ITO. Bu ITO.t
thd document (CATT/1P/84) that wac cireulby the b-r tUnited S,ates'
declarcd that the esterczten aeencics an Presidentdoent had a reed. that the
Havana Charter should not be rmitubldio Congress. He wondered ,e nere-d
wheteher tndefinite postponement of consideration of the Charterni of the hartur
by the most importaparty. If that arte so, a number r;r so, a nwxbleof
governmentconsider whether it was worth while w, s crth -;hil2 for them to
continue as contractinAgreement whose main taks rhnt =hoe task, in his
view consisted of dem lition atory work in order!ry vo:thrh il-n that The
field of internatelations mighntbe cleared, and ' ; cle a n,a sounder
structurelbuilt which wou.be fall Article I , .l. Xivuicl_ of the Ha ana
Chartestatements of principles and objectives. 0u: aro j.tivo-- The
Geheral Agreement incourth of these. For threef the-e. Pox th years.
the demolitieneral Agreement had bee grue.:.',olrin dn carried (n the hope
ction as envisageonby the Charter would follow. ow vcl.', follioIf that
hope werc to deferdefinwhere was little value in continuingn.uo ½ co;-tinuilr
or imprdemolitio wprovided in the Agreement. I in,the Agree-mee If
howended that the Contracting Parties, in addition PR.rtics, In C.Kto
clearang a, should also consider putting into the Agreement,n-V into t'e Agret.
littlostrucittle,evelopment provisions of the teVr :rk-iionsz of Chaiter,
w,-d.t was poesible to do so, atteaswould be he mottur 'l'.L bealtered.
While it wasetrue, thaorganisations in the internani.S:'aKono n the tional
fienomicuch as the Ecouncil, which dealt with matt; t.h w2.t with) ners
ho had rmntioneds targely theoretical and they wereretic-t,! acnd. utwe re(
l.rexperdies nowish no permanent organisati p. i permanent or,,.nition,
It hIs beeuld take over much of the constructiveo.rer mu-,c:ah of thf oonsttrutive
work which economic organisation and itlthy con.omxic org.aniso .ion .at
saseclaration, that was of committeeocl-.. ,atiOn; that was of -i.-..
governments such as his, GATT/CP.5/SR.18
page 4.
Insofar as the limited objectives of the Standing Committee were
conceded, there would probably be no difficulty in agreeing in principle.
He asked whether the United States representative could clarify the position
of his Government, During the last thirty years national administrations
had moved from questions of law and order to questions of welfare and
development and it was time that questions of development should be dealt
with on an international level. If this were not done, the aims and
objectives of the Charter to which the Agreement subscribed would be foregone
and the interest of governments would diminish.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) associated himself with those who had
expressed their appreciation of the Canadian proposal. It was appropriate
at this stage to take stock of the procedural arrangements for the admini-
stration of the Agreement and the, recent announcement of the United States
only increased the timeliness of this stocktaking. His Delegation's
initial reaction to the Canadian proposal had not been completely favourable.
Although the present administrative arrangements left much to be desired,
they had considerable virtues which were not to be found in fully origanised
bodies. However, the statement by the Canadian representative at the
preceding meeting and the ensuing discussion made it clear that there was no
wish to throw over the present system, but rather to formalise to a certain
extent the experience of the Contracting Parties thus far. He was in
favour of preliminary examination by a Woking Party at this session, in
order that full consideration could be given to the problem before the next
session, He agreed with the United Kingdom representative that it was
necessary for Goverrnments to review their attitude to the Agreement in its
present form in the light of the declaration by the United States. He wished
to refer to one point of detail with regard to the length of meetings,
Provided meetings did not last as long as the Annecy meeting had, his delegation
was not much concerned about a duration of four or five weeks. But, at any
rate for the more distant countries, it was particularly necessary to avoid
frequent meetings. He hoped any procedures that were worked out would pre-
suppose no more than one meeting a year.
Mr. BROWN (United States) wished to reply to the questions posed by the
Indian delegate. With regard to the Gray Report, it was, of course, the
report of an individual who had been asked to study the situation and present
recommendations and conclusions, Although there was general endorsement
of the conclusions, they remained those of in expert adviser rather than a
decision of policy on the part of his Government. With regard to the Havana
Charter, he explained that his country had a constitutional situation
whereby all legislative matters ended with one Congress and had to be stated
anew in the next one. The President had decided he would not re-submit the
Charter to this Congress in the light of the present situation and its heavy
programme and since Congress was in session for two years it was certain
that there would be no action on the Charter during that time. With regard
to the breader questions to which the Indian representative had referred, the
General Agreement was certainly identified with the broader objectives of the
Charter, He felt, and his Government felt that the work of the Agreement was
more than a question of demolition. Much defended on the use of the word.
Every construction work required some destruction in order that forces could
be released and foundations laid and the building created, and it was in this
light that his Government regarded the Agreement. In other fields touched on
in the Charter the work of Construction had begun and was being carried on
actively in the international field. In fact, the degree to which nations
were now actively associated in pooling their knowledge and capabilities in
fields such as technical assistance, the relief of unemployment, poverty,
sickness, etc., would a few years ago have seemed unthinkable. In Colombo
various countries had met and produced a constructive programme of economic
development. Similar work being carried out in the United Nations.
In the United States the Congress and people and the administration were GATT/CP.5/SR.18
page 5
devoting time and work and money to the matter of economic development
on an international scale, In the field of commodities, new concepts
were being established in commodity agreements which had de facto effect
if they were not legally binding. A wheat agreement had been put into
effect and others were under consideration. In effect the forces of
construction were certainly at work and should continue to be strengthened
in every way. It was proper that governments should consider whether their
attitude towards the Agreement was changed by the action of the United
States but he hoped this debate would not end on a note of pessimism or
lack of progress. He felt that there was progress under the General
Agreement and constructive work being carried out, that countries had
acquired a certain amount of confidence in it and that by doing the
necessary demolition work the constructive forces of commerce were being
released.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The IZXECUVT SECRETARY welcomed the study to be given to the question
of the continuing administration of the Agreemont. It was appropriate at
this tiun for him to acknowledge with thanks the many compliments which
had. been payed to the Sccretariat. He hoped that one of the results of
the consideration to be given to the question of future administration would
be. the expression in the, form of conditions of stable employment ahd
settled abode, of the generous recognition contracting parties had accorded
the Secretariat. He had made it clear-before that the role of the Secre-
tariat was limited to a certain extent by budgetary considerations. While
not wishing to recommend a large expansion of the staff some increase
was clearly necessary and he hoped also that it would be possible to offer
conditions of employment which would attract able men and women. However,
mere increase in numbers was: not the 'oint, As the United States repre-
scntative had said, the Contracting Parties did not possess a Secretariat
and he ard his staff had been inhibited by the fact that they were not the
Secretariat to.the Contracting Parties and that no such secretariat in
fact existed. But for this factor, it would certainly have been possible
to accomplish more than had hitherto been the case, and he therefore
hoped that the Contracting Parties would set up their own secretariat very
soon. One result of the non-exitence of a secretariat for the
Contracting Parties had been to impose upon the Chairman functions more
properly belonging to thdadministrative organ. This sas neither very
workable nor ftir since the Chairman had at tames had to accept
reponsibility for actions where adequate consultation had not been possible,
There had been no serious problem in the past but it could become so in
the future. The Working Party should therefore give attention to a
definition of the functions of the executive organ,
Mr. COUILLAI (Canada) expressed the gratification of his Delegation
at the serious and responsible atmosphere of the debate on this subject
and he thanked the Contracting Parties for the generally favourable
reception which had been ancorded to the proposal. He had been interested
to hear the various constructive corrents. The types of safeguards alluded
to by various speakers had been very much in the mind of his delegation
also ard should certainly be borne in mind when the question was studied hy
the Working Party. He apologised for the fant that his statement contained
no reference to the problem of acceding governments and it was clear that
this must also be considered by the working party. He gathered that there
was general agreement on the principle that a steeri. committee be
established. There also appeared to be agreement that no decision could be
taken fo set it up at this time. This was logical and reasonable and
indicated the importance of establishing a working party with terms of
reference sufficiently broad to enable it to study all aspects of the
problem and make recommendations to the Contracting Parties at this session. GATT/CP.5/SR.18
page 6
On the basis of the Working Party report the Contracting Parties would he
better able to confirm the agree nt in principle to the proposal.
Then, in the interval between this session and the next one, governments would
have time to decide on their attitude in the light of the views of other
contracting parties and, of the Contracting Parties acting jointly concerning
the nature of the steering committee. Although there was no intention
of pressing for a final decision at this session, the work should be
rushed ahead as far as possible.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought it was important that
there should be no misunderstanding on this. matter and the Canadian
representative's statement might perhaps give rise to some. He could not
agree that the debate should be regarded as approval of the proposal in
principle. Surely it was only an attempt to give the first consideration
to an important proposal. Nor did he think that the report of the
working party should be brought back to the Contracting Parties at this
session to be in some manner endorsed by them. The Working Party could
only began its Consideration and in the time remaining this consideration
could hardly be exhaustive. The Working Party should be asked to do what
it could, the Contracting Parties could then take note of its activities
and the matter would be left over to the next session when the picture would
be clearer. In any case this present debate could only be considered as
a first reading,
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) could not agree that in the seven days remaining
to the working party it could, not conduct a relatively full examination.
In any case it was fruitless to discuss the question of whether or not it
was possible; the working party should be set up and allowed to work.
It was also important that the report of this working party should be
submitted to this session of the Contracting Parties. A number of
governments had referred to the need for some statement before they could
give their views and it would be extremely difficult to seek the approval
of a government for a committee whose nature was unknown; nor could
delegations present to their governments the report of a small working
party without knowing the views of the Contracting Parties as a whole.
He had felt that the general sense of the meeting was that some kind of a
report was necessary before the end of the session.
The CHAIRMAN considered it clear that representatives did not wish at
this stage to come to a decision or agreement on the acceptance in principle
of the proposal. The wish seemed to be send the matter to a working
party which would give full consideration between now and the end of the
session to all these matters and to the views of the contracting parties
The working party would report back to this session of the Contracting
Parties. That report would give the opportunity for further examination
and clarification of views and at last enable all delegations to submit a
full report on the matter to their governments at the end of the Session.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Canadian delegation for the proposal
submitted and said that the discussion on this item had shown the valle
both of having a well reasoned statement and ample time to consider it
and to obtain the views of governments. The trend of the discussion
had been much influenced by the important declaration of the United
States Government and the Chairman considered that the statement of the
United States representative in this meeting had been interesting as showing
the attitude of his Government to the General Agreement. The discussion
had raised various important points: the question of the title of the
committee had eliminated views on its authority and the scope of its
functions; it was generally agreed, and this seemed to him very important,
that final decisions should always rest with the Contracting Parties; GATT/CP. 5/SR.18
page 7
the question of the composition, numbers and basis of representation had
Raised the points that observers should be admitted, the idea of a
rotational system, and representation of the smaller countries; reference
had also been made to the real value of the meetings of the Contracting
Parties themselves with the experience gained by various delegations in
the administration of the Agreement and the advantages arising out of
friendships made at the various sessions.
The CHAIRMAN assumed that there was general agreement on the setting
up of a working party and he hoped it would achieve its difficult task
quickly and successfully. He proposed terms of reference.
After some discussion, terms of reference were agreed to as follows:
"To examine in the light of the discussions of the plenary
meeting on the 7th and 8th December the proposals of the Canadian
delegation for the appointment of a permanent Committee to
ensure the more effective administration of the General Agreement
and to present a report to this session, for consideration by
the Contracting Parties and for transmission to Governments
for further study."
The CHAIRMAN then proposed the composition of the Working Party and
after a further discussion it was agreed that it should consist of 12
members as follows, who would elect their own Chairman:
Australia India
Canada Netherlands
Chile Pakistan
Denmark U. of S. Africa
Dominican Republic United Kingdom
France United States
This was agreed.
The meeting adjourned at 1.30 p.m.
MO AM ME |
GATT Library | ry514qd4376 | Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Thursday, March 23, 1950, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 23, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 23/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.18 and GATT/CP.4/SR.14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ry514qd4376 | ry514qd4376_90270106.xml | GATT_142 | 1,831 | 11,638 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT.4/SR.18
TARIFFS AND TRADE 23 March 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on
Thursday, March 23, 1950, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L..D. Wilgress (Canada)
Subjects Discussed: 1. 1950 Tariff Negotiations - other
Plans and Arrangements.
2. Budget Report for 1949/50.
1. 1950 Tariff Negotiations - Other Plans and Arrangements
(GATT/TN.2/8 and Add.1)
The CHAIRMAN informed the meeting that in reply to the
questionnaire contained in GATT/TN.2/7, (1) 17,countries
had submitted information which showed that 152 lists of
products had been exchanged, (2) lists of requests to 111
countries, in addition to the 152 to which lists, of products
had been sent, would be submitted, and (3) tariffs and
statistics were being requested in 78 other cases. From the
replies received it would appear that some 300 negotiations at
Torquay could already be considered possible.
Mr. GRADY (United States) said that the absence of the
United States lists of products was due to the procedure which
had to be followed and that they would be available shortly.
Mr. DESAI (India) explained that while it appeared
from document GATT/TN.2/8/Add.1 that the United States was
the only Country with which his Government wished to exchange
lists of requests, other lists were being prepared and would
be sent before June 15th.
The. CHAIRMAN felt it was evident - from the information
received ,so far- that the tariff negotiations at Torquay
would be very extensive. He urged the delegates to do
everything possible to expedite the forwarding of customs
tariffs and trade statistics. He recalled that two points
had been left in abeyance regarding plans for Torquay, first
the date by which other countries should submit lists of
requests on Germany in view of the delay before the new
German tariff would be ready, and second, the suggestion of
the German representative that an extension of time should be
giver to Germany for the submission of its lists of requests
to those Governments, sending them lists of requests without
having sent lists of products. He recalled the suggestion
which had been made that other governments negotiating with
Germany should have a further period beyond 15 June for the
submission of lists, and that since the German,government had
received the customs tariff and trade statistics of other
countries, it should not be necessary to defer the submission
by Germany of lists beyond 15 July. GATT/CP.4/SR.18
Page 2.
Mr. IMHOFF (Germany) stated that his government has
accepted willingly the invitation to take part in the next
tariff negotiations to lower tariff barriers on the principle
of reciprocity, and that the Federal Government, since last
December, had been removing quantitative restrictions. At
present, as he had explained at an earlier meeting, a special
committee was working out a new tariff and it was not the
intention of the German Government to introduce a high
protectionist customs policy. The German Customs Tariff
Commission was working on the principle that a certain measure
of protection was necessary, but, in comparison with other
countries their tariff would be only moderately protective.
This depended on other countries granting them similar treatment,
and on substantial reductions to be granted by countries with
high tariffs in order to balance his country's concessions. Only
if sufficient concessions for German export goods were granted
by contracting parties would it be possible for Germany to
increase its exports sufficiently to eliminate the deficit in
Germany's balance of trade and payments in the more or less near
future. Mr. Imhoff said that it would be regrettable if other
countries took the occasion of the re-appearance on the market of
German goods to increase their duties for such goods. He
recalled that at the meeting on 14 March, he had stated that
the Federal Republic had agreed to postpone the date for
acceptance of the lists of requests of other countries to 15 July
and had asked that they should similarly be permitted to delady
sending their lists of requests to such countries. On that
occasion the delegate of the United Kingdom replied that there
was no reason for a corresponding delay in spending requests by
Germany. Mr. Imhoff wished to say, however, that his government
might find it necessary, upon the receipt of requests after the
date of 15 June, to send lists to other countries, and he felt
sure that the Contracting Parties would not wish his government to
be in the position of having to refuse any list. He also
mentioned the difficulty his government would have in supplying
teams of negotiators for the 14 countries to which they had
submitted lists of requests, and said it would hardly be
possible to form tears to negotiate with all the countries
represented at Torquay. Lists of requests had not yet been
submitted to some countries because customs tariffs and statistics
had not been received from 29 countries. Mr. Imhoff, while
regretting that the German customs tariff was not ready, said
that there was also uncertainty about tariffs of some other
countries. Furthermore, if a contracting party found it neces-
sary to modify a concession contained in the existing Schedules,
a notification could be sent to the contracting party with
which the concession was initially negotiated at the opening of
the tariff negotiations or even later. The obligation upon his
Government to make known its offers on the first day of the
Torquay meeting would place them in a position less favourable
than that of the contracting parties whose Geneva and Annecy
lists would still be subject to modification. Their lists of
requests and their offers would therefore both be on an
uncertain basis. He felt that the stipulations of the memorandum
of November 1st 1949 were more onerous than the conditions which
had been laid down for the Annecy acceding governments, and that
this should not be the case.
He expressed his satisfaction with the draft Resolution for
the maintenance of the assured life of the Geneva and Annecy.
concessions and felt they should trust in their decision as
reducing the element of uncertainty to which he had referred. GATT/CP.4/SR .18
Page 3.
Mr. PHILIP (France) wished to make it clear that the French
government was examining any reductions in rates of duties which
could be agreed to in the course of the Torquay negotiations.
The committee set up for this purpose might propose exceptional
upward re-adjustments of small importance, but the French
Delegation would negotiate in Torquay on the present tariff..
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought it desirable that they
should receive the German request lists by 15 June so that
preparations could advance as rapidly as possible. The
German government had had his governments tariff and statistics
for some time and they would like to receive the German
requests with the least possible delay. However, in view of
the considerations which the representative of Germany had
put forwards his government would not insist on rigid adherence
to the date of 15 June and would accept requests until 15 July,
assuming, however, that the great bulk of requests would be
forwarded by Germany by 15 June,
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) hoped the contracting parties would
allow some degree of latitude in the meeting of deadlines.
Mr. INHOFF (Germany) thanked the representatives of France
and the United Kingdom for their statements.
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) stated that his government had
sent its tariff and statistics to Germany in November, but up to
now had received no products lists. In view of the large volume
of trade between his country and Germany, he wished to ask the
representative of Germany the reason for this omission.
Mr. IMHOFF (Germany) stated that his government had not
intended sending a list of requests to the Netherlands, but that,
if the Netherlands wished to negotiate with them, his government
would make requests after the receipt of the Netherlands' lists.
The contracting Parties approved the proposal that in view
of the late publication of the German tariff, requests on Germany
might be sent up to July 15th, Germany to have also until July 15th
in the case of countries who had not submitted their lists by
June 15th.
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) asked if it would be possible
to have some explanation of the new German tariff before the
Torquay negotiations, and also enquired as to the date on which
the tariff would be forwarded.
Mr. IMHOFF (Germany) replied that he thought a written
explanation of the tariff could be sent and that the new tariff
will be ready by 15 May.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY asked representatives to inform
their governments of the importance of estimating at the
earliest possible moment the size of delegations which would
be sent to Torquay; the amount and type of hotel accommodation
and, most important, the amount of office accommodation required.
He hoped shortly after the session close d to enter into
discussions with the United Kingdom authorities to work out
administrative arrangements for allocating office and hotel
accommodation, and would communicate these arrangements to
contracting parties as early as possible. In the meantime it
wouldbe helpful if contracting parties would refrain from
making individual arrangements and conform to the procedure which
would be suggested after consultation with the United Kingdom
authorities. GATT/CP .4/SR. 18
Page 4.
The CHAIRMAN strongly endorsed the suggestion made by
the Executive Secretary. He also requested delegations to
inform the Secretariat of the correct address to which request
lists should be sent as, in the absence of any other address,
such lists were sent to the Foreign Ministry which sometimes,
resulted in long delays.
2. Budget Report for 1949/50
The CHAIRMAN referring to the Budget Report for 1949/50
outlined the recommendations contained in paragraphs 5 and 6
of Budget/6 and requested the adoption of these recommendations.
In connection with contributions he stated that the Deputy
Executive Secretary had asked him to announce that since the
distribution of Budget/6, information had been received from
Czechoslovakia, India and New Zealand, regarding the payment
of their 1950 contributions, and from Italy regarding the pay-
ment of their 1949 contributions. He drew the attention
of the meeting to Annex I containing the Revised Budget
Estimates for 1950, and Annex II containing the Revised Scale
of Contributions for 1950, remarking that the latter should
be read in conjunction with document GATT/CP.4/9/Add.2 dealing with
the contribution of Indonesia.
Mr. EVANS (United States) requested confirmation that the
contribution of the United States was not affected by the
revised scale.
The DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY in his reply referred to
Budget/4/Rev.1 giving the Scale of Contributions approved at
the Third Session, and confirmed that the United States'
contribution remained the same.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) stated that his government
would shortly make payment for their order of Annecy Schedules,
and that their 1950 contribution would be paid soon after
5th April 1950.
The recommendations contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of
Budget/6 were adopted
The meeting adjourned at 4 p.m.
3 N a |
GATT Library | tc930hx8664 | Summary Record of the Eighth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Tuesday, 7 November 1950, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 8, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.8 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tc930hx8664 | tc930hx8664_90270127.xml | GATT_142 | 2,875 | 17,757 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B GATT/CP.5/SR. 8
TARIFFS AND TRADE 8 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay,
on Tuesday, 7 November 1950, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Hon L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Continuation of discussion on Item 26 of the Agenda:
Amendment of the last paragraph of Part II of Article XX
to correspond with Article 45 of the Havana Charter.
(GATT/CP. 5/17)
Continuation of discussion on Item 26 of the Agenda: Amendment of
the last paragraph of Part II of Article XX to correspond with
Article 45 of the Havana Charter. (GATT/CP.5/17)
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) said that he would be prepared to accept the proposed
compromise of a definitive date in Article XX and agreed with the United States'
suggestion of 1 January 1952. With reference to the original United Kingdom
proposal that the extension of time apply only to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of
Part II of article XX, he felt that such a distinction should not be drawn between
surpluses and shortages. It Would be found on investigation that certain shortages
as well as surpluses had disappeared since the war. In any case the justification
put forward was the prospect of new shortages in the future arising from the
needs of the armaments programme, rather than the past or present situation. The
armaments programme was already causing the creation of stockpiles of raw materials
and it was essential to the raw-material producing countries that the provisions for
orderly liquidation contained in sub-paragraph (c) should be retained. The
Agreement as a whole could be considered as a balance between importing and
exporting countries, and sometimes this balance was to be found in individual
Articles. This was such an Article, and he would not be prepared to accept the
extension of the escape clause unless sub-paragraph (c) were also covered.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) said that while Australia, like Canada, was
opposed in principle to piecemeal application of the Charter by the insertion of
various provisions in the Agreement, he did not think that this proposal came
under that definition. When this Article had been drafted, it had been thought
that the Charter would be in effect by 1951, and some action was now necessary
by the Contracting Parties to adjust the position, especially in view of the fact
that certain factors which were then operating still continued . His Government
was very interested in preserving its rights under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) in
particular. There were still shortages of certain goods, and price control and
other restrictive measures continued, of necessity, to be in operation. He
preferred the suggestion that the Havana Charter version be used, but he had
nevertheless been impressed by the reasons given by the United States representative,
and was prepared to accept 1 January 1952 as a compromise. As to the retention
of the application of the proposal to sub-paragraph (c), he agreed with the
New Zealand representative that more information would be necessary.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) said that the situation which, at the time the
Agreement was drafted at Geneva, had permitted a certain optimism, had altered by GATT/CP. 5/SR. 8
Page 2
the end of the Havana meeting, and the text of the Charter made no mention of
a date and left full latitude to the Organization. While the Charter text
perhaps presupposed the existence of an Organization, the situation now
was different to that envisaged at the time of the drafting of the Agreement,
and this fact should be taken into account, He had seen originally no
objection to accepting the United Kingdom proposal, and he did consider that
to fix a new date would be to fall into the original error of Geneva. If a
date were to be fixed for the extension of the escape clause, it would be
advisable to make the extension at least two years, It was, however,
absolutely essential that the extension cover all the sub-paragraphs of Part II
of the Article. Sub-paragraph (c) was the only guarantee to primary countries,
in the present situation, of building. up large stocks, ana its exclusion could
not be contemplated, Frequent attempts had boon made to introduce Chapter VI
of the Charter into the Agreement, and were that Chapter with its provisions
to safeguard primary/countries included, there would be no need to conserve
this paragraph. In the present circumstances, however, he agreed with the
Cuban representative that to eliminate sub-paragraph (c) would. be to destroy
the balance of the article. If it were eliminated he would vote against
such action and reserve the.position of his government both:with respect to
the.Article and to the Agreement itself.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) was impressed by the general
support given to the United Kingdom proposal, but thought there might be
some misapprehension as to its scope., There Was no intention to abandon
sub-paragraph (c), but only that, with respect to sub-paragraphs (a) and
(b), the date of 1 January 1951 be replaced by the more flexible provisions
of the Charter. Sub-paragraph (c) would continue to be ruled be the date
in the Agreement. In any case, sub-paragraph (c) was surely to be read
as applying, to the past..The reference to "the war" could only mean the
war just over.
He disagreed with the suggestion of the Cuban representative
that. the Charter provisions were only appropriate to a situation where the
Organization was, in existence, It seemed to him that the provisions of the
Charter were more appropriate to the present situation, where no permanent
executive body kept matters under constant review, but recourse was to be
had only at the regular meetings of the Contracting Parties.
Sir Stephen Holmes had also been impressed by the reluctance of
contracting parties to contemplate anything in the nature of an amendment,
It seemed to him that if an improvement could be made to the text it was
only sensible to make it by any means at hand.
Finally, the argument had been advanced that this amendment could
lead to abuse. However, the United. Kingdom proposal it no way altered the
present safeguards in the Article, and contracting parties could intervene
at any moment and sot a date by which time the measures referred to would
have to be removed. If the date of 1 January 1951 were simply altered to a
later date, he thought that contracting parties would find themselves repeating
these same arguments in a year or two years time.
Mr. BROWN (United States of America) emphasised that the Article
Under discussion was an exception to the general rule, introduced to deal with
a transitional period, Human experience and common sense taught that measures
introduced for such periods tended to become permanent. The United Kingdom
representative had said that there was no real difference between a situation
where you had a definite date and one where no date was specified. however, GATT/CP. 5/SR. 8
Page 3
there was surely a material difference in that in the first case the burden
of proof would rest on the Contracting party wishing to make use of the
exceptions, and in. the latter, on the contracting party' opposing the
exceptions. It was principally for that reason that the United States
opposed the change in the form suggested by the United Kingdom.
With regard to sub-paragraph. (c), the representatives of Cuba
and Chile had put forward good reasons for treating it in the same manner
as sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), and the words "the war" in sub- paragraph (c),
mentioned by the United Kingdom delegate, were also to be found in sub-
paragraph (b). He thought that common ground between the divergent views
so far expressed might be found in the proposal of the Frenh representative,
with the amendment suggested by the United States.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) wished to emphasis his previous statement that
it was future shortages that were contemplated rather than past or present
ones, and whatever treatment was give to that situation should also apply
to surpluses. With regard to the remarks of the United Kingdom represen-
tative on the existence of a permanent Organization, it was desirable and
necessary that .the situation be periodically reviewed and the use of this
Article discussed from time to time as would be the case if a definite date
were fixed. He consequently agreed with the representative of the United
States.
M.LARRE (France) proposed a resolution, in the following terms:
"The Contracting Parties, considering that the circumstances which caused
the insertion of Article XX, Part II in the General agreement had not
disappeared by the date originally fixed,
Resolve not to require the removal of the measures which had been or would be
instituted within the terms of paragraph's a, b, c of Part II of Article XX
before a date to be fixed later and which would not in any case be earlier than
1 January 1952 (or 1 January 1953)."
The CHAIRMAN summarised the discussion. There had been considerable
opposition to the original United Kingdom proposal of altering the last
paragraph to conform to the Havana Charter Article, and the compromise
suggested by the French and United States representatives of specifying a
later date had received a certain amount of support. There had also been
opposition to the exclusion of sub-paragraph (c) from the coverage of the
proposed extension of time, and finally, there had .been opposition to the
proposed use of the amendment procedure. A decision had, therefore, to be
made on (1) the method of amending this Article, whether by amendment or
by resolution; if a resolution were decided on, attention might be turned to
the French proposal, leaving the Secretariat to prepare a draft for considera-
tion later. (2) The coverage of such an amendment or resolution would also
have to be decided - whether sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) only were to be
included, as proposed by the representative of the United Kingdom, or whether
all three sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). would be included. (3) Finally,
a decision should be made as to whether to adopt the original proposal for
extension in the manner contained it the Havana Charter, or one of the two dates
proposed, 1 January 1952, suggested by the United States representative, or
1 January 1953 suggested by the French representative.
In reply to a remark by Mr. GUERRA, the CHAIRMAN said that a decision
could first be taken on the coverage of the amendment or resolution. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 8
Page 4
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) thought it would be helpful to clarify
the point of principle raised by the United Kingdom representative as to
the interpretation of the words "the war" in sub-paragraph (c). He thought
there could be no doubt that these words referred to the last war, but if
this interpretation were accepted and inserted in the record it would be of
assistance.
Mr. BROWN (United States) suggested that a considered interpretation
would unduly prolong the present discussion. His delegation was prepared
to debate at length on the meaning of this paragraph and he thought it.
preferable to confine the discussion to the issues clearly before them.
It would not be the proper procedure to make a casual interpretation in the
abstract on an important provision that might at a later date be of concern
to a contracting party.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway). said that he was not clear as to the
implications of a resolution procedure or an amendment procedure, and it
might be helpful to the Committee as a whole to have a working party set up.
to deal with this entire question.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) agreed with the United States representative.
He also was prepared to debate at length as to the interpretation of sub-
paragraph (c), particularly as his interpretation was contrary to the
interpretation of the New Zealand representative. As to the question of
whether to use a resolution procedure or amendment procedure, .the most that a
resolution could do would be to alter the date for all three paragraphs.
Any elimination of sub-paragraph (c) from the scope of the date in the last
paragraph would, clearly be an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN said there were now two proposals before the Committee
as to procedure: one to refer the questions at issue to a Working Party, and
the other the proposal put forward by the Chair to decide now on the various
points. He explained that, whatever procedure were adopted, either
amendment or resolution, a 2/3 decision of the Contracting Parties would
eventually be required; an amendment under the terms of Article XXX and
a resolution because it would be equivalent to a waiver of obligations
and would also require a 2/3 vote under the terms of Article XXV: 5(a).
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) supported the Norwegian
proposal for a working party.
It was agreed by a vote of 15 to 9 to set up a working party to
consider the best means of attaining the objective of amending the last
paragraph of Part II of Article XX, composed as follows:
Belgium New Zealand
Canada Norway
Chile Italy
Cuba United Kingdom
France United States
Chairman: M. Cassiers (Belgium) GATT/CP. 5/SR. 8
Page 5.
Suggestions for standard practices to minimize commercial
uncertainty and hardship under the administration of import
licence and exchange control (GATT/CP.5/8)
Mr. BROWN (United States) said that many business man engaged in
foreign trade had experienced difficulties and uncertainties because of the
way in which the various controls, necessary under the present conditions,
were administered, Uncertainty was the greatest difficulty to any trader
and definite information would be preferable even if in some cases it was
definite information of severe controls. Other countries might have
experienced the same difficulties and the United States had thought
therefore that it would perhaps be useful for the Contracting Parties
to agree on some general principles to be applied in connection with the
administration of import controls. Suggested standards wore set out in
the statement submitted by his Delegation, and it might be useful to establish
a Working Party to study them.
Mr. STEYN (Union of South Afri ca) said that he had considered
with interest the United States proposals and agreed in principle with the
objective of eliminating unnecessary hardship. His country had already had
some experience with the problem and had found it necessary to establish
special machinery for consultation between the import control authorities
and the commercial community. In establishing these procedures they had
been assisted by suggestions put forward by governments of some other
countries. The South African delegation was prepared to support the
objectives of the United States proposal but he wished also to emphasize
the necessity of taking into account the differences between various
countries. He could see certain difficulties in the United States
statement, but this was a matter for a working party to consider.
Dr. VAZNA (Czechoslovakia) welcomed the United States proposal
and agreed to its usefulness. In commercial relations, however, the export
side had also to be taken into account, and the proposal seemed incomplete in
that this was omitted, As presently worded, it appeared that only
importing countries caused hardship by the administration of restrictions.
This might be true at a time of a buyers' market, but in the sellers' market
that had existed since the war, hardship was often caused by the exporting
countries. In order to complete the aim of this paper of a "fuller
implementation of the general provisions and intent of the GATT" Dr. Vazna
suggested the addition of the words "and export" after the word "import"
in the title, in the sixth line of the first paragraph, in paragraph 2 and
in paragraphs 4 and 9.
M.LARRE (France) supported the suggestion to create a working
party. He thought its terms of reference should be limited to the proposal
as set forth by the United States since the questions of exports had already
been subject to debate in the Contracting Parties and the legal difference
between the two typos of controls had been fully discussed. With respect to
the scheduling of working parties in general, he hoped that it could be done
in such a manner as to enable all delegations, large or small to be
represented.
Mr. PENTEADO (Brazil) supported the United States proposal in
principle. Any general standard that was set up should not, however, be so
rigid as to defeat its own purposes and furthermore standards should be
carefully worded so as to avoid any possibility of transferring control from
the government to the importers. As examples of possible difficulty in wording
that might be considered by the working party when it met, he pointed to the GATT/CP. 5/SR. 8
Page 6.
words "when due" in paragraph 1, to paragraph 3, to the, percentage contained
in paragraph 6 and to the question of the type of communication in paragraph
8. He supported the setting up of working party to consider these matters.
The CHAIRMAN said that the discussion would be continued on the
following day. The remarks of the French representative would be borne in
mind when a time-table was drawn up for the meetings of working parties at
t he close of the plenary meetings.
The meeting adjourned at 6. 30 p.m.
an |
GATT Library | hh581gv5581 | Summary Record of the Eighth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 28 February 1950 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 28, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 28/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.8 and GATT/CP.4/SR.8-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hh581gv5581 | hh581gv5581_90270085.xml | GATT_142 | 2,654 | 16,750 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP. 4/SR.8
28 February- 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Held .at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 28 February; 1950 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Proposal of the United Kingdom to re-
validate the Genava and Annecy Schedules,
. ,,.,(cont.).
2. Final .Adoption of the Agenda.
3. 1950 Tariff Negotiations.
1. Proposal of the United Kingdom to re-validate the Geneva and
Annecy Schedules (cont)
Mr. MAYATEPEK ( Turkey) referred. to the remarks of the delegate
of France that morning to the effect that a re-validation of the
Geneva and Apnnecy concessions might encourage acceding governments
to believe that they could benefit-thereby on the strength of the
general most-favonured-nation clause without offering equivalent
benefits. The Turkish delegation felt that acceding governments
would not be hindered.. by such a situation as much as by finding
themselves confronted with the risk of lowering concessions which
were in a fluid state and might be withdrawn.
Mr. .LOS ..cndto
Mr. ALFONSO (Chile) supported the proposal on the condition
that it would be possible in the course of the Tariff Negotiations
not only to negotiate new concessions but also to withdraw items.
from the Geneva and Annecy lists. Among other reasons, Chile
might want to review the position in view of the effect on its
balance-of'-payments of the fall in the world price of copper.
Mr. CASDAGLI (United Kingdom) referred to the Norwegian
statement,and to the FFe wrnimplication,on, that the United Kingdom
proposal would not allow readjustments .to be made until the date
which it was prepared to substitute for 1 January, 1951. He
assured the Contracting Parties that the United Kingdom delegation GATT/CP.4/SR.8
Page 2.
had no intention of depriving themselves or anyone else of the
right to make adjustments, although he was hopeful and confident
that their number would be restricted to the absolute minimum.
As for the acceding governments he felt they should be faced with
an agreement of all Contracting Parties on what they had to
offer. He would support reference to a Working Party.
Mr. SAW OHN TIN (Burma) informed the Contracting Parties
that his delegation was ri}c; interested in the proposal, but
thought that approval of their legislature would be necessary
before Burma could give it effect. He would make no
further comment until he received more definite instructions.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) said that if as had now
been made clear, it was not the intention of the United Kingdom
delegation to have the protocol signed before the Torquay
negotiations, some of his difficulties would be removed, but he
referred to the questions of principle raised by the delegate of
Belgium which he would like to have the opportunity to discuss.
Mr. PHILIP (France) agreed to the proposal on the under-
standing that there would be no formal commitments before
Tor quay.
Mr. TUOMINEN (Finland), as representative of a country
which would probably become a contracting party very soon, ex-
pressed his agreement with the proposal.
The CHAIRMAN considered that there has been an ample dis-
cussion which would afford a Working Party a good basis for the
consideration of the proposal.
The Contracting Parties agreed to set up, under the chair-
manship of Dr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN, a Working Party composed of
the following countries to
examine the proposal of the United Kingdom and report to the
Contracting Parties: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Indo-
nesia, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom and United States.
2. Final Adoption of the Agenda . _
(a) Inclusion of items 14 and 15. (GATT/CP.4/14).
The CFHIRMAN referred to the statement by the delegation of
the Usited State. concerning the inclusion in the Agmsda of iteiL
14 and 15 which had new been re-drafted and merged into one item,
worded as follsws: "Conaideration of Quantitative Restrictions
on Imports and Exports." After a discussion in which Mr. GRADY GATT/CP.4/SR. 8
Page 3.
(United States), Mr. WALKER (Australia) and Mr. SCHMITT (New
Zealand) participated, Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) withdrew an amend-
ment he had proposed to the terms of reference contained in
document GATT/CP.4/17.
The Contracting Parties agreed to the inclusion of this
item, worded as above, in the Agenda of the Fourth Session, and
to the terms of reference (as contained in document GATT/CP.4/17)
for the Working Party which would be set up to consider the
matter.
(b) Inclusion of item 13 in the Agenda.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) proposed the broadening of this item
to read as follows: "Arrangements for regular Reporting in
accordance with paragraph 2 Annex J and for Reporting in accord-
ance with Article -XVI."
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested that document
GATT/CP.4/15 should be sent directly to the financial Working
Party. He felt that this matter arose directly out of the pro-
visions of article XIV paragraph 1 (g).
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) said his delegation had no object-
ion to the consideration of this item and supported the proposal
of the delegate of the United Kingdom.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the matter for discussion was
the inclusion of the item in the agenda and that consequently
there was no question of referring it to a working party which
had not yet been set up.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he had made his suggestion
because the subject matter was so essentially technical that much
time would be saved if this procedure were followed. A way out
could be found by holding up consideration of the paper until
the relevant item was discussed and then refer it to the working
party which would be set up.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) pointed out that the proposal had
been submitted in due form for inclusion in the Agenda and that
there was no reason why any item which was relevant to the terms
of the General Agreement should not be discussed. This applied
to the formal aspect of the question; as to the substance, he
felt it most certainly should be discussed.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) referring to the proposed
broadening of th < item to include reporting under Article XVI, GATT/CP. 4/SR.8
Page 4.
objected to the srg:iEng into one item of reports of such different
types as those envisaged by the proposals before them.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) did not think the difference was so
great as to demand separate consideration.
The inclusion in the Agenda of . .L.: 13, as amended , was
approved.
(c) Statement by United States Delegate.
Mr. GRADY (United States) expressed his concern and disappoint-
ment that such a long discussion should have been necessary to
obtain the inclusion in the Agenda of items fully relevant to
their work and which had been proposed in due form, and that rep-
resentatives had emparked on a discussion of the substance of the
questions instead of keeping to the proposal that they be placed
on the agenda
Mr. WALKER (Australia) said he, for one, had questioned the
inclusion of these items because his Delegation was concerned to
ensure that all matters placed on the Agenda were strictly
within the terms of the General Agreement which, it should be
remembered, was still in provisional application; there were
many matters which would require discussion, and which most
certainly would be discussed by an International Trade Organi-
zation, but were not necessarily eligible for discussion in
meetings of the Contracting Parties at this stages
3. 1950 Tariff Negotiations - (i) Enquiry from Switterland re
The CHAIRMAN thought there was no doubt in the mind of the
contracting parties about the desirability of Switzerland par-
ticipating in the Tariff Negotiations and acceding to the Agree-
ment; and that the best manner to attempt to deal with the
problem of the special Swiss position would be to set up a small
Working Party.
On the proposal of Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) it was agreed
that the records of the Sub--Committee of the Executive Committee
of the ICITO, which had studied the matter in 1948, in relation
to Swiss membership of th. International Trade Organization should
be made available to the Working Party.
The Contracting Parties agreed to set up a Working Party to
examine the question composed of representatives of Brazil, Canada, GATT/CP.4/SR. 8
Page 5.
France, the United Kingdom and the United States, under the
Chairmanship of Mr. SUETENS (Belgium) who had also presided over
the Sub-Committee of ICITO.
(v) Other Plans and Arrangements.
Considering that this Session would be the last occasion
given to contracting parties for the finalisation of arrangements
for the Torquay Tariff Negotiations, the Chairman thought they
should take the opportunity to discuss any points which might
require action, He referred to document GATT/TN.2/6 which gave
the present position concerning the exchange of lists of products.
He drew the attention of representatives to the small number of
lists which had to date been exchanged, although all lists should
have been exchanged by January 15th. He also referred to docu-
ment GATT/TN.2/2 and Addenda, which gave the position regarding
the exchange of tariffs and statistics.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) referring to the exchange of
lists of products, said it had been the understanding of the
Working Party that this preliminary stage was not essential in
all cases, and that lists of products need not be exchanged between
countries which agreed to waive this procedure.
~~~~~~~~~~of
The CHAIBMiN stated that thes/s constitutional procedureome
countries required the presentation of such lists. He felt
however, that no objections could be raised against eliminating
this stage whenever there was mutual agreement. This might
perhaps explain part of the gap which existed between the possible
703 bilateral exchanges and the actual 121 which had taken place
to that date, He thought it might be useful to ascertai n the
intentions of participating governments with regard to all other
governments,
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) pointed out that his Government
had not received all the necessary documentation, in the form
Of statistics and tariffs, which should have been sent by the
25th November, 1949. From Western Germany they had only re-
cetued the customs nomencla:.re, which did not specify the actual
rates of duty. He rroposed that the Secreta:iat send telegrams
to all governments that had not yet complied with the instructions
contained in thg Memorandum on Tariff NeLotiations, in order to
make up as much as possibl for the delays already 'incurred. GATT/CP. 4/SR. 8
Page 6
The CHAIRMAN informed Mr. BOEKSTAL that the Western German
Government, under a misapprehension, had only sent tariffs to
those countries to which they had sent lists of products. They
were now taking steps to remedy this omission. He added that it
would be difficult for the Secretariat to do more than they had
done, and recommended that representatives approach their colleagues
with the object of obtaining what they still lacked.
Mr. MAYATEPEK (Turkey) assured the contracting parties that
although they had not yet sent their lists of products, his
government wished to make requests to other governments, and would
do so before 15th June.
Mr. EICHORN (Western Germany) said that lists on, products
had been dispatched to a number of countries through the channel
of the Allied High Commission, and that if other countries wished
to make requests to Western Germany they would be prepared to
negotiate. As to their Customs Tariff, he was authorized by his
Government, in agreement with the Allied High Commission, to state:
(1) that the Federal Government would do its utmost to
submit to other representatives by the middle of May,
1950, their draft customs tariff, approved by the
Government.
(2) That the Federal Government would endeavour to obtain
approval of the draft customs tariff by their legis-
lature by the beginning of the Tariff Negotiations in
September.
Mr. CLARK (Australia) stated that the recent change of
Government had made it difficult to submit lists of products,
particularly in view of the early departure of his delegation from
Australia, A list had been sent to the United States to meet their
procedural requirements, but he could say no more about the other
lists. He asked the Chairman whether it would be possible for
bi-lateral negotiations to take place before they all met at
Torquay.
The CHAIRMAN replied that there was nothing to prevent this,
provided their lists of offers were filed on arrival at Torquay.
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) said that tariffs and statistics had
been sent only to the new acceding countries because they were
now out of print. The documents sent to the Annecy acceding
governments could, however, be considered as up to date. GATT/CP. 4/SR. 8
Page 7
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands) informed the Chairman that he
could only approach those acceding governments which were here
represented by observers, and repeated his request that something
be done by the Secretariat to accelerate the procedure for those
countries which could only be reached through the post. He also
asked whether it would not be possible to obtain in advance,
sections of the Western German tariff as they were completed. He
realized that a customs tariff was a harmonious whole, but felt
that a provisional draft, for instance the section on agricultural
products which constituted the first part of the German tariff,
would be most useful to his government in preparing requests.
Mr. EICHORN (Western Germany) replied that he would be glad
to submit the Netherlands request to his Government, but he con-
sidered it unlikely that they would be able to accede to it
because, as had been said, a customs tariff was a single unit and
furthermore, government approval had to be secured for the text
before it could be circulated.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that representatives inform the
Secretariat of the information and documentation they still had
not received. He also suggested that governments should make
use of their diplomatic channels to contact governments directly.
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that his Government had sent lists
of products to all countries except Western Germany; they would
like to receive lists from those countries which desired to
negotiate with France but would not insist on receiving them from
those countries which had stated they did not consider it import-
ant to exchange these lists.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) said that his position was the
same as that taken by the United Kingdom delegate and that they
had sent lists only to the United States. He strongly supported
the proposal made by the Netherlands that the German tariff be
distributed piecemeal as sections of it were completed. He also
wished to mention that as far as he was aware the German tariff was
not precisely fixed and that the rates of duty were dependent on
import prices; he was not sure whether this would be compatible
with the terms of the General Agreement.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), reinforcing the plea of the
Netherlands and Denmark, drew the attention of representatives to
the fact that the West German draft tariff had been promised for GATT/CP .4/SR.8
Page 8.
a date which would leave governments only one month for the pre-
paration of request lists. Any provisional draft would be a
great help, particularly in view of the entirely new shape which
the chest German tariff would take.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) said that his government did not
intend to send requests to government other than those to which
they had sent products lists, and asked whether it would be
necessary for his country to maintain a delegation at Torquay for
the whole period of the negotiations.
The CHAIRMAN replied that, although New Zealand had sent
lists only to a few countries, he felt sure that many other
countries would wish to request concessions from New Zealand.
He suggested, however, that the New Zealand delegation might com-
plete its negotiations at Torquay at the earliest possilble date,
after which it would not be necessary for a delegation of negot-
iaters to be present.
The meeting adjourned at 5.40 p.m.
lo In :. |
GATT Library | jv916nf9897 | Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay on Thursday, 9 November, 1950 at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 10, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.11 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jv916nf9897 | jv916nf9897_90270134.xml | GATT_142 | 2,413 | 15,697 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP. 5/SR.11
10 November 1950 ___GINAL: EN I CORIQLiath! MIGLTSH
CONTACTIN' PARTIES
Fifth Session
ETI2 .REORD 07 -DiV', T MMTf'rNG
Held at the larine Spa, Torquay
r5. Ttursday, .m. November, .190 at 10.30 a.
Chairman: lon. L.D. ',LGPESS (Canada)
Subcit discussed: 1. Agenda: Proposal of tho Delega~ton of
Czechoslovakia (GAT/CP. 5/22) to include
a additional iter:- "'th Assured Life
of thw Tarifl Concessions Yith regard
to ',iclo XIX".
2. Preservation of Secrecy.
u. AccAssion of Uru .ay (G,TT/CP.5/21).
4. Review of Pestrictions on Imports and
Second Report on the Discriminatory
Application o2 Rostrictions (GATT/CP.5/5).
1. ASenda: Proposal of tce Delegation of CzP-hoslovakia (GATT/C?.5/22)
to inclum an"addiAsonal iteii - 'the )-sured Life of the Tariff
Mr. BROV'.q (United States) said what h s deleeatien \ould .welcomc thc
inclusion of theeites proposedaby Ceochozldvaki , wnd r;questea thel Cotracting
Partieseto take it up at thc marliest possible morent.
The in Jus±cnapproved.item: was r X7 .
In reply toMan iHMAD tion by ar. AIZU.' (wakist:n) that he :ould need
instructions frori his AoRMAN ent, the CH.I'-V2T said that discussion of the
itemi would be deferred for several. days.
2. Preservation of Secrecy
The CIL'1P M rominded delegations once again of the confidential nature
of thC discussions .and papers oP the sontracting ?artiez and of the Tariff
Negotiations. His attention had boon called to various press reports on
confanentiae mattere, wia heocmphclizodeth't nj dese.osur should bc made
to thc press.
5. DecisioA relative to rne cyccsAion P. /21)uwY (GOTT/C?.52i
The C1AIVj,N recalled that approval ihe rinciple to tilC accession of
Uruguay had been giveneet tge second mictin of twa Session. It trs now
necessary, in ordor to give formal effect to this approval, to adopt a
Decisiom, under thleteXrs of Artic.c XLXIII, by a two.thirds majority
The Decision w vopeoved b a -rvto of 27,ein favour, nonc against.
Mr. L ATTE (Ued uaye thmnk,(e thu Cormittce fo. this action, GATT/CP.5/SR. 1 1
Page 2.
4. Review of Import Restrictions and Second Report on the
Discriminatory Application of Restrictions (GATT/CP.5/5)
The CHAIRMAN said that this was one of the most important items
on the Agenda of this Session. The General Agreement concerned itself
net only with tariffs but with all kinds of restrictions on trade. After
the Third Session a questionnaire was issued for the purpose of collecting
information for the preparation of a Report under Article XIV: 1(g). This
Report was drawn up at the Fourth Session. Also at the Fourth Session
it was decided that the review of balance-of-payments restrictions provided
for in Article XII: 4(b) should be undertaken, together with the preparation
of the Second Report under Article XIV: 1(g). The Chairman summarised the
recommendations of the Working Party on Quantitative Restrictions of the last
session (document GATT/CP.4/33), viz. that the Secretariat be instructed to
prepare a draft questionnaire, taking into account the replies to the first
questionnaire, the discussion at the Fourth Session, and the relevant
provisions of the Agreement, and, secondly, that the questionnaire be
finalized and issued at the Fifth Session, so that draft reports could be
prepared for consideration at the Sixth Session. The study of Import
Restrictions was therefore proceding by various well defined stages. The
Secretariat had submitted a draft questionnaire, and as it would clearly be
recessary to establish a Working. Party to give it detailed consideration,
it was desirable that there should be a general discussion by the
Contracting Parties for the guidance of the Working Party. The CHAIRMAN
said he understood also that it was the intention of the New Zealand
delegation to propose that the scope of thc investigation of Import
Restrictions be widonod, so as to include those imposed under Articles other
than XII and XIV.
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) said that in vice of the technical
nature of the questionnaire he would confine himself to general comments as
to what should be the guiding considerations of the Working Party. A
questionnaire, in order to be effective, should comply with four requirements.
Firstly, it should be so cormposed as to unable the contracting parties to
secure a complete picture of Import Restrictions applied pursuant to Article
XII and of the degree of discrimination in their application. The present
draft did not perhaps completely meet this requirement. Secondly, it should
be realistic in that it should ask for information that contracting parties
could reasonably be expected to supply without undue difficulty. Under
some of the paragraphs of the resentt draft countries would have great
difficulty in supplying the information requested and Mr. Steyn gave as
examples question 8 and some of the statistical data required. Thirdly,
in the requests for information, a careful balance should be preserved
between those contracting parties wihich had elected to be governed by
Annex J and those which had chosen the Havana option. Section IV gave him
the impression of exacting more detailed information from the countries
which were operating under the provisions of Annex J. Finally, the
questionnaire should not be so loosely drafted that it left contracting
parties uncertain as to what was expected of them, thus defeating its purpose.
The persons who would prepare the replies would not always have the background
of the discussions of the Contracting Parties to guide them as to exactly
t was required by the various questions. In formulating the draft
questionnaire the Secretariat had, of course, been guided by the questionnaire
drawn up, after the Annecy meeting, and experience since that time would
s.ubtless enable the Contractin, Parties to improve on the original version. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 11
Page 3.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) said that the questionnaire gave him the
impression of imposing on countries the burden of proving that they were
applying their import restrictions in accordance with the terms of Articles
XII and XIV. These Articles allowed import restrictions, and discrimination
in their application under certain circumstances, and it was also clearly
laid down that any suspected infringement might be brought before the
Contracting Parties at any time. A review of import restrictions should
be based on the assumption that these rules were being applied correctly
unless there were proof to the contrary. Furthermore, the questionnaire
asked so many questions and presupposed the existance of so large an
amount of information and such ability to forecast the future, that
countries would have great difficulty in replying. Mr. Melander believed
that a more useful approach would be to ask each country to send a
memorandum indicating the main principles of commercial policy, particularly
with regard to discriminatory measures. The Secretariat could then analyse
the various, memoranda in order to see what principles were being applied
in the context of the Articles in question. After such a general
examination of the problem it would be possible to go into such details
as might be required by the Contracting Parties.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) had no detailed comments at the present
time and said that his government would be glad to supply any information
necessary and available to enable a report to be made in accordance with
Articles XII: 4(b) and XIV: 1(g). He agreed that it might be difficult
to answer some of the questions, owing to the impossibility of foreseeing
coming events, but all any contracting party was called upon to do was to
answer to the best of his ability, and as helpfully as possible. He also
doubted whether all the statistical information asked for was necessary
or useful. It was, of course, necessary to have the information sent in
in a uniform manner or the task of evaluating it would be impossible.
With regard to the proposal of his delegation concerning the collection of
information on other import controls, he referred to the Report of the
Working Party set up at the Fourth Session, which had mentioned the
restrictions imposed under Articles XI, XVIII, XIX and XX. Owing to the
concentration on the balance-of-payment articles, particularly in
preparation for the review, not much examination had been given to the
others. His delegation thought that the new questionnaire might be an
opportunity to obtain information on the other forms of import restrictions -
not for a review, since there was no provision in the Agreement for such
a review - but in order to have a comprehensive picture of the measures
being applied for the control of imports. He suggested that this might be
referred to the Working Party for consideration.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that his delegation agreed in principle
with the idea underlying the draft questionnaire, but had some observations
to make on various points of the draft. It would be difficult to comply with
all the requests contained in paragraph 6 of the General Notes, Regarding
Question 8, it would be possible to give a reply of only a general nature to
the first sentence since it was impossible to establish what the volume of
trade of a contracting party applying discriminatory restrictions would be
if the rule of non-discrimination were applied, and any figures provided
would be purely arbitrary. As for the second part of the question, it would
be almost useless to list the categories of products which were the object
of discriminatory measures, and the supplying countries of each, and it would
in any case be impossible to furnish anything but the most general indications GATT/CP. 5/SR. 11
regarding expectations of improvement. His delegation considered that
Question 9 was not sufficiently clear since a discriminatory policy was
not generally applied by making all purchases of one product in one
particularr country. In any case, here again the reply would probably be
of a general nature and of little importance. He did not see how Question
11 could be answered since discriminatory restrictions, precisely because
they were discriminatory, inevitably resulted in altering the normal
structure of international trade. Furthermore, he did not see how the
re-establishment of multilateral trade and a constant equilibrium in the
balance of payments could be achieved by discriminatory measures. Regarding
Question 12, it was evident that a precise reply could not be given since
no-one could foresse when economic equilibrium would be re-established
in various countries. Question 14 could only result in replies of a
general character since commercial policy was governed by many factors,
and not exclusively by commercial ones; in any case the present situation
was too unstable to permit the establishment of any programme. As for
Question 16, the Italian delegation regretted that it would not be able
to furnish the data which would be required by the Belgian proposal.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) said that the draft prepared by the
Secretariat was based on the relevant provisions of the Agreement and
provided a useful basis for discussion by the Contracting Parties, who
would decide on the practicability or desirbility of covering, the subject
as comprehensively as proposed. The general framework appeared appropriate,
but the amount of detailed information and forecasting required was perhaps
ambitious. There were also certain points that were not quite clear, for
instance, the words "and administration" in paragraph 6 of the General
Notes and Question 3, where it was not clear whether every product should
be listed. He also had doubts as to Section 6, as he thought this
information would be difficult to supply. Furthermore, to speak of plans
for the removal of restrictions was unsuitable in the case of Australia,
whose balance of payments depended on the movements in the prices of a
few commodities which were quite unpredictable. However, the questionnnaire
as a whole had been framed with due regard to the difficulties of each
country. With respect to the Belgian proposal, he thought there would be
considerable difficulties in going beyond the statistical data already
required by the questionnaire.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought that the form of
the document was unfortunate, and that oven the statistical services of
the United Kingdom would have difficulty in answering some of the questions.
The Working Party should address itself to the substance and form of the
questionnaire and try to climinate some of the questions which could not
be answered, either because of the difficulty of providing material,
or because of the necessity of looking into the future. His delegation,
of course, recognised the importance of having adequate information on
the subject of import restrictions.
Mr. LEHTINEN (Finland) thought the questions t .o broad, and that
they would result in very varied repliess. Better results could be obtained
if theywere brokenk own into agreatert nmxber of questions, and defined as
precisely as possible.
Mr. DSA;I (India) agreed withoAther representatives that many of
the questions asked the impossible. The Secretariat could not be blamed,
because theyknoww vwhat they required,blut could hardlyknew; what governments
weec in a positonn to supply. Since therepo)rt on discrimination would be GATT/CP. 5/SR.11
Page 5.
an annual affair, it might be desirable to consider some permanent
arrangement in order to avoid a lengthy Working Party at each session
to decide on a questionnaire. Also, the time had come to look at the
provisions of Article X and to supply the Secretariat regularly with all
the regulations mentioned therein. The Secretariat could then be a
centre for co-ordinating and classifying the various types of information
submitted, and they would then know what kind of information was available.
He proposed that delegations be asked to provide the Secretariat with
lists of material that could be sent regularly.
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) thought that the Working Party should
address itself to clarifying, and, if possible, reducing the number of
questions. He also asked that account be taken of the proliferation of
questionnaires from various international organizations and the
difficulty for governments to reply to them all
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that the draft questionnaire fulfilled
the mandate of the Fourth Session. It was complex and detailed because
the articles dealing with import restrictions were complicated, and also
because the technique of restriction had become so complex, and the
restrictions themselves so widespread. He thought that the suggestions
made by the South African representative for the guidance of the
Working Party wore very constructive, and he fully supported them. The
draft questionnaire was a good basis to work on, and delegations should
concentrate on the constructive contributions that could be made to the
task of the Working Party. As far as the difficulty of looking into the
future was concerned, he recalled meetings of other bodies in which
delegations had been willing to make forecasts and estimates.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | fq531qk3406 | Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Thursday, 2 March 1950 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 3, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.11 and GATT/CP.4/SR.8-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fq531qk3406 | fq531qk3406_90270093.xml | GATT_142 | 2,155 | 13,425 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP. 4/SR. 11.
3 March, 1950.
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
On Thursday, 2 March 1950 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed:
1. Continuation of discussion on Item 14 -
Quantitative estrictions.
2. Item 13 - Arrangements for reporting in
accordance with Article XVI.
3. Item 3 (ii) - Communication from Czecho-
slovakia on the participation of 'estern
Germany in the Tariff Negotiations.
4. Item 5 ( i ) - Schedule VI - Ceylon -
Results of Negotiations (document (GATT/
CP.4/12 ).
1. Continuation of discussion on Item 14 - Quantitative Restrict-
ions.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark), referring to his remarks at
the previous meeting, repeated that the restrictions, while
regrettable, were necessary in order to he able to import essent-
ial goods. It was clear that there were two schools of thought;
the literal school in favour of free, multilateral trade and con-
vertibility, and ready to run the risks that this policy entailed,
and the other school which was in favour of security, particularly
against unemployment, even at the risk of lower and less efficient
production. Both points of view were provided for in the Charter
and each must try to understand the other.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that he had been glad to hear
of the similarity of conclusions reached in the discussion of the
previous meeting and most clearly expressed by the Australian
and Canadian delegates. There seemed to be agreement that,
without going beyond the scope of the General Agreement, it would
be useful to examine this problem and to consider to what extent
there was any departure from the aims of the General Agreement GATT/CP. 4/SRR. 11
Page 2.
in the current application of quantitative restrictions. He
supported this view. He wished, however, to say that in
discussions on this item, and those on connected agenda
items, as also at earlier meetings on similar questions,
there seemed to be a tendancy to postpone a thorough exam-
ination or any decision until later sessions. He felt
that he should point out the reaction of his own Government
to this attitude and the meaning that the General Agree-
ment had in other negotiations or in bodies other than the
Contracting Parties, particularly as these questions of
restrictions were more and more being examined elsewhere.
The school of those who would by-pass the GATT because it
seemed ineffectual and its rules unrespected was gaining
ground. It seemed to him that the Contracting Parties
must decide now whether they wished to continue to take
part in the regulation of international commerce, and the
only way in which their contribution would be respected was
to face the fundamental problems now. The Working Party
should clarify as far as possible the province of the General
Agreement and, when this was done, enter into the Concrete
details of its application.
He referred to the Chairman's speech at the end of
the 3rd Session and hoped that his words on the need for
diminishing the emphasis on purely national interests
would be heeded, and the wider effects of policies given
more consideration.
Mr. CASSIERS suggested that the Secreteriat make a table
of the authorisations given by the Agreement and the miner in
which they could be used.
He referred to the remarks of M. Philip and of other
delegates on the balance of dollars, full employment,
need for development of national industries etc; the
Agreement had forseen all of these problems and contained GATT/CP. 4/SR. 11
Page 3.
provisions which stated that, if these things were
found to exist, certain measures could be taken and
certain measures could not. He did not think that
questioning the rules of the Agreement on these matters
was in order at this stage. The Working Party should
confine itself to clarifying what the rules of the Agree-
ment were and on deciding whether or not they were being
applied. If a country should claim that it was unable
to apply the rules of the Agreement, that would raise an
entirely different question of a possible revision of
some of the rules and should be dealt with in a different
manner.
Mr. LECUYER (France) wished to clarify the remarks
made by M. Philip. The latter had not proposed that
the Working Party re-open the whole problem of the balance
of payments. He had, however, stated that the Agreement
had been founded on the hypothesis of a temporary dis-
equilibrium and, since it was beginning to be apparent
that this disequilibrium was permanent, reliance on the
terms of the Agreement alone was insufficient to cope with
the problem of restoring the multilateral pattern of
trade. He had not suggested a manner of dealing with
the problem but he felt that it was a problem which
must be carefully investigated as a whole and not only
in its technical aspects.
U. SAW OHN TIN (Burma), hoped that the special
conditions existing in the different countries would
be taken into account in the examination of quantitative
restrictions imposed for other than balance-of-payments
reasons. GATT/CP .4/SR .11
Page 4
The CHAIRMAN said that the comprehensive discussion in
the Plenary Session, there had been 26 speeches, should assist
the Working Party in deciding quickly on the lines along which
it would proceed in its consideration. of this question. The
terms of reference as set out in document GATT/CP.4/17 had
been agreed upon before the item was placed on the Agenda.
There had been many references in the meeting to the importance
of keeping within the framework of the Agreement and he felt
that the terms of reference fulfilled this condition. In this
connection he referred to Articles XII (4) (b), XII (5), and
XXV, and to the objectives of the Agreement as set forth in
the Preamble.
The terms of reference were agreed.
The CHAIRMAN suggested the following countries for
membership of the Working Party: Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Ceylon, France, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, South Africa,
United Kingdom, United States, with Dr. Walker, Australia,
as Chairman in his personal capacity.
This membership was approved.
2. Item 13 - Arrangements for reporting in accordance with
Article XVI (GATT/CP.4/20).
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) explained the draft decision
circulated by his delegation. This paper did not cover the
case of countries which were not yet contracting parties but
he thought that once the procedure with respect to Article
had been put on an operative basis new contracting parties
would accept it.
Mr. EVANS (United States) explained that the United
States hoped to be in a position to produce the notification
required during the course of this Session. He supported the
proposal of the delegation of Canada including the date of
1st August, 1950, on the understanding, however, that any
contracting parties able to do so would submit their
notifications earlier.
The draft decision was approved (GATT/CP.4/20). GATT/CP.4/SR .11
page 5
3. Item 3 (ii) - Communication from Czechoslovakia on the
participation of Western Germany in the Tariff Negotiations.
Mr: BENES (Czechoslovakia) said that he wished to make
the following statement. Firstly, the Czechoslovak Government
had expressed its opinion on the inclusion of Western Germany
at the London Meeting of the Working Party on future tariff
negotiations. This was contained in document GATT/CP/36.
Secondly, his Government had communicated its attitude towards
the creation of the Federal German Republic in a note of 6th
October 1949, forwarded to the Secretariat on the 26th October.
He stated that the creation of the Federal Republic had made
economic and political control by all four occupation powers
impossible and prevented Western Germany from fulfilling its
obligations. His Government considered that Germany was
still occupied territory and did not possess the full autonomy
in the conduct of its external commercial relations required
under Article XXXIII of the General Agreement. This
conclusion was based on the declaration of the Allied High
Commission of 10 November 1949, in which the Commission
reserved its right to limit decisions on questions of
customs, tariffs and quantitative restrictions, and on the
fact that foreign trade was subject to control by the Allied
High Commission and mentioned some examples. Futhermore,
Western Germany had not notified its intention to participate
by the date provided for, nor had it circulated the necessary
statistical and tariff material. His delegation consequently
proposed that the Western German application be rejected
Mr. EVANS (United States) considered that the arguments
made by the Czechoslovak delegation had almost all been
originally made in London and considered then very carefully
by the Working Party. The Working Party had nevertheless
recommended the inclusion of the Federal Republic. The only
new point raised by the Czechoslovak delegation was the
failure to notify in time its intention to participate.
There was some reason to doubt that it had been the intention
of the Contracting Parties to foreclose any possibility of
participation by countries which notified after November 15th.
Even if that GATT/CP. 4/SR. 11.
Page 6.
had baen their intention, it was within the power of the
Contracting Parties to alter such a decision, and there
were examples of such procedure. He did not wish to
imply that the United States was in favour of a continual
extension of dates, and particularly emphasized that dates
set forth in the basic instruments of the Contracting
Parties, particularly in the Agreement itself, should be
strictly adhered to. However, dates which were the
result of a decision by the Contracting Parties should be
considered more in the light of convenience. There was no
evidence that any Contracting Party was seriously inconveni-
enced, by the delay in the acceptance of the Federal Republic
and as to the delay in receiving the tariff and statistical
material that was an inconvenience that occurred with regard
to several countries. It seemed to him that the majority
of the contracting parties would prefer to carry on these
negotiations with/Germany even if all the information was
not available as early as wished.
Mr. IMHOFF (German Federal Republic) referred to the
fact that the terms of the Memorandum on Tariff Negotiations
had not been fully complied with, and explained that at the
end of 1949 both the Allied High Commission and the Federal
Government had still been in the organisational stage and it
had not been possible to send the material then. Since that
time both statistical Material and request lists had been
despatohed.
Mr. SHACKIE (United Kingdom) and Mr. LECUYER (France)
supported the United States point of view.
Upon the request of Dr. Benes, a vote was taken on
Western
his proposal that the application of/Germany be rejected.
The result was one in favour and 17 against.
4. Item V (i) Schedule VI - Ceylon - results of negotiations
(document GATT/CP.4/12)
Mr.. JAYASURYA (Ceylon) referred to the report on the GATT/CP. 4/SR. 11
Page 7.
results of the negotiations and said that it would be seen
that the negotiations had been conducted within the time
limit set by the Contracting Parties at their 3rd Session
and had resulted in full agreement. Only one item was not
covered by the release - "cotton verties" - and it had been
agreed to recommend to the Contracting Parties that a
release be granted on this item as well. A joint letter
would be addressed to the Chairman suggesting the manner in
which the release should be granted.
Mr. EVANS (United States) wished to take the opportunity
of expressing his satisfaction that the work begun by the
Working Party at Annecy had Been concluded and that the full
releases requested by Ceylon with the exception of this item
had now been finalized.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the first part of the Report -
paragraphs 1 and 2 (a) to (f) be sent to the Working Party on
Rectifications and that this Working Party report back to the
Contracting Parties if it considered that any action was
necessary. With regard to paragraph 3, this might be re-.
ferred to a Working Party on Article XVIII which could report
back to the Contracting Parties and, if necessary, the matter
could then be referred to the Working Party on Rectifications.
The letter referred to by the delegate of Ceylon could be circu-
lated when it was received and could also be taken into account
by the Working Parties if necessary.
This procedure was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the period of 30 days
referred to on page 2, paragraph 1, which would be allowed
for the lodging of objections. He interpreted this to mean
that this period of 30 days would begin from the present day -
the day on which the report was circulated - and that if no
objections were received the release would become effective
on April 2nd.
The CHAIRMAN congratulated the parties concerned on
the satisfactory result of the negotiations.
The meeting was adjourned at 4.35 p.m.
. 1
sonF |
GATT Library | gh468sh3451 | Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England on Monday, 27 November 1950,at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 29, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 29/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.15 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gh468sh3451 | gh468sh3451_90270140.xml | GATT_142 | 962 | 6,352 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP. 5/SR. 15 LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE 29 November 1950
____ NAL: ENGLI H ORIGIA*(ILTSI.,:
CONTRCT fl'.TIES
Fifth Session
SIEziAD OF THE FIFTEEI-TH I2ZI1I
Hc at the Marine Spa, Torqucy,nEixnd
on Monday, 27 Novermber 1950,0 t 10. 30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. A. DT NOLA (Italy)
Subjects discussed: 1. Intcrim Re-ort of Working Party "A'"
(c TT/CPB 5/25 and Add. 1)
2. Report of Working Party "5" (GATT/CP. 5/28,
and Corrs. 1 and 2)
In -ccordace withpRule 11 of the Rules of Procedure which Drovides that
a Chairnan shouldane elected for the geeting if the Chairms= of the Contractin
Parties is absent Mnd the Vice-Chairman is not available, ,r. DI NOLA (Italy)
vasMunanimWNsly cledtod on the Amoposal of Yr. BRO11 (Unitel States of `'erica)
seconded by M. LARRE (France).
A" G IntePim R5 ort of !Working Party (CATT/C?.5/2 -and Add 1).
Mr. HEYITT (Australia) sunmarized Part 1 of the Report relating to the
measure notified by Haiti. and recommended its adoption.
?art 1 of the. Report Was approved.
In paragraph 6 of the Report twe gontracting Parties adopted the follo1in-
decision:
TTaI- CeTmeasurRA.TIEN,,RTS, haMvin agree tht tho .eslotified by Haiti
saXVIIItisfif tes gtho ret.uirements of Artioe L o-eAreemen
DECIDE that a release be Crdetedp for a period of 5 years, unidr aragraph
12 of Article XVIII -for the riantenance of the measure insofar as it
requires importers to obtain an import permit
Mr. HE1ITT, Reresenting the secorA part of the 7port, and drawing attention
to an.mendx!t put fom-vaby the Danismalh delegation, said that no forrm.o
decision was required of the, CoHntracting Parties on this point. e suggested
that the Contracting eParties note its contents: the masures for protection and
developmem hdT es absorbed into a systo-1. o rkz .tctions which camue nder
Article XII. Io decision yas, therefore, required under Article XVIII as long
as the meAsures were covered by Article XII. It should also be noted that
foelowing the peecedent cstablinhcw in the casc of Chile, if ard %hen the measures
in ques3ton cease to be arplied undermArticle XII, the Danish Governrent might
notify the Contracting Partice, in adlance of that time, undcr Artic.e XVIII.
?art Ip of the . port was therefore aoproved.
2.A RePport8of Working Party C (GCTT/C.5/2 and Corrs. 1 and 2)
ir. P;STORIZA (Dominican Republic), introducing the report, pointed out that
the 1.rking Party had reduced the estimates submitted by the Executive Secretary
by ,42,000 or by about 10o. In view of the fact that the additional burden
resulting fromlrthe preposed revision of he a.rangemcnts of the Interima Commission
for the Inwrenational Trad Organization ;ould have to be. taken into account for
1951, the appropriationsn iwould not allows of any substatal change in the
structure of the Secretariat, though they would enable the Executive Secretary GATT/CP. 5/SR. 15
Page 2
to fill a few vacancies which for reasons of economy were not filled in 1950.
The financing of the activities of the contracting parties -would, for the first
time, be on a fully self-supportinh basis.
As regarded the Executive Secretary's proposal to set up a Working
Capital Fund to meet fluctuations and the delays in the receipt of contributions,
the Working Party had not felt able at the present stage to recommend its
adoption, but strongly recommended that the matter be taken up at thue next
session.
He also stressed the recommendations of the Working Party to all
contracting partiecs t'o send in their contributions as carly as possible, and,
in any case, not later than April 30, 1951. As some acceding governments
might not become contracting parties early in 1951, with a consequent, possible
delay in the payment of their contributions, the Working Party recommended
that they should be apprised of the necessity for an early payment of their
contributions for 1951, and should endeavour to secure from the appropriate
authorities the necessary powers to remit their contributions as soon as they
became contracting parties.
Although they had been concerned only with the financial problems of 1951
he vished to bring to the attention of the contracting parties the fact that,
even if no increase in their activities were contemplated in 1952 it would
not be possible to keep the contributions at the present level. In fact,
in budgeting for 1951 they had been able to make use of substantial savings
effected on the 1950 Budget, but it was doubtful whether they would find
themselves in the same favourable situation at the end of 1951. He thought
he would point this out as some governments would have to take into considera-
tion the probability of increased contributions to the GATT in 1951 when they
prepared their own budget estimates. . s-
'. sl-ye .ithz rtrar.. ns thee,cWoU ng Partycon dibutioii,. tht lrrkiu bty ha
con de:e&7. etl resenr scaLe so lon- .o tho fg pncingior stY ;cI1U sst U inaca:
Tat Wn ah to7ko''reac{ jthxt deb r, b r(oh Tto theisiio hIank s vc' ' -
CwnnCe ~i.to y spirienta'ive .t~tCzec relor-sia.t~ of *EtCses'Ovakl,..
o.ec sa numberh fhbrerin' aw ;o be oims td *c cleare
atxt th!'ssie , - e fs onr h-_ elt tthata subsogrpanti!I pressm hadbeen he e in ths
arnangment . ran-cetrs ofactingContrct ir Parties.
N e C IP.eii c mMlimoAteORIEAr. P.ST0we k I on theordone byg his Workin
feltay 'etrt1e r*cho Cn tg Par es wic;d;o> grae yedatic by the progress
man ill thmporrnnctant m tter ofafcing thG, aceirctievitis.
BR.WN?O ' (UniStated aesAm,r ofriasc Ma)ndArR . NI (India) associated
themselves with the Cmanrsdremaks.kF,
Repc nornt ad the recenmmdedtions conted oCI teer,inl which mma~mtrised
tdesscuCionssI held, werapprove
Th. eeRolution on the eenxpenditueo~ th; Contractinrg 2Prties in 1951 and
the ways 7na (Lmea of mceeinlr such eapxnditurc,etogctocrewith Anncxese',AB :ain C,
was 2apov:de
The lle-itinrosoea t 11.45 aum. |
GATT Library | dk910fx9266 | Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 14 March 1950 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 14, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.15 and GATT/CP.4/SR.14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dk910fx9266 | dk910fx9266_90270099.xml | GATT_142 | 4,294 | 27,244 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.4/SR.15
TARIFFS AND TRADE 14 March, 1950.
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
On Tuesday, 14 March 1950 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Australian Subsidy on Ammonium
Sulphate - (continued discussion).
(GATT/CP.3/61 and GATT/CP.4/23).
2. 1950 Tariff Negotiations: other
plans and arrangements.
3. Review of Brazilian internal taxes
(GATT/CP.3/42).
1. Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate (GATT/CP.3/61 and
GATT/CP.4/23).
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that his delegation had
followed the deliberations with great interest, and had come to
the conclusion that this difficult question, involving both
and
matters of fact/interpretation of provisions of the Agreement,
deserved the closest attention by the Contracting Parties. At
this stage his delegation found it difficult to agree that Aus-
tralia had infringed the provisions of Article I and III of the
Agreement; but held the view that concessions granted by Australia,
at Geneva, had been impaired in a way that Chile might not be
reasonably expected to accept. Steps, therefore, should be taken
under Article XXIII of the Agreement, which provided for such
cases not necessarily involving any violation of the obligations
a contracting party under the Agreement. This delegation, there-
fore, supported the proposal that a working party should be set
up and entrusted with the tasks of studying the facts in relation
to the provisions of the agreement. The report of such a working
party would be valuable in guiding the Contracting Parties in
dealing with similar cases in future.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) was do btful whether the case came at all
within the preview of Articles I or III; in his view it was more
likely to fall under Articles XXIII and XVI. The Working Party
should be asked especially to study the provisions of the latter
article in relation to this particular case. It would be useful
if Australia could supply statistical information on its trade in GATT/CP. 4/SR.15
Page 2.
past years in the products in question, and on their production,
Mr.WALKER (Australia) replied that the statistics of local
production of the two products were not satisfactory, and could
not be readily supplied. He could give figures relating to
consumption and importation of the products and further details
would be supplied to the working Party if the latter considered
it necessary. With regard to the suggestion that Geneva con-
cessions had been nullified, he felt it reasonable to say that
changes in such war-time measures as subsidies must have been en-
viisaged even at Geneva. When the war-time price-control powers
of the Government lapsed, a revision of the existing subsidies
became necessary. Such measures were being reviewed annually and
revisions made from time to time in accordance with the changing
needs of the country. In this connection, he would mention that
even the existing subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate was to be reviewed
in the course of the present year.
In reply to the Chilean representative, he said that whatever
words might have been used by the Australian representative at the
negotiations in London, Australia had definitely not accepted
that .- 'id infringed any provision of the Agreement, but, in
view of the importance attached by Chile to the problem, Australia
had agreed to undertake negotiations under Article XXIII with a
view to providing a certain degree of satisfaction for Chile. The
concessions offered by Australia were, unfortunately, not accepted.
Referring to remarks of the Chilean representative at a previo
meeting, Mr. ALKER said he had not meant to cast any doubt on the
quality of Chilean Nitrate as a fertilizer, nor had he implied
that Nitrate as a fertilizer was intrinsically inferior to
Ammonium Sulphate. But, the two fertilizers did have different
properties making them more suitable for different purposes and
different conditions. The preference in other countries, such as
the United Kingdom and Sweden, for one or the other of them was,
therefore, not necessarily relevant. The chief characterstics
of the two products might be briefly mentioned: Except in the
growing of sugar, nitrate could be used only when mixed with other
fertilizers. In view of the mechanical process of such mixing
account had to be taken of the chemical properties of a fertilizer,
such as its moisture absorbing qualities and its readiness to
crystalize. It was clear that a fertilizer had to be chosen with GATT/CP. 4/SR. 15
Page 3.
due regard to the conditions of agriculture, the properties of the
soil, and the nature of the product. Furthermore, the Chilean
representative had viewed the question merely as one of the com-
parative benefits to the industries producing the two fertilizers.
From the Australian point of view, however, the abolition or
maintenance of such subsidies had to be decided with regard to
their impact on agricultural development, and it was in the light
of the needs of Australian agriculture that the government had
decided provisionally to withdraw the subsidy on one of the pro-
ducts, and to retain it on the other. In other words, it was not
a question of two mutually substitutable fertilizers, but a
question of the Government's policy with respect to the users of
the two products. The present policy of the Australian Govern-
ment happened to require the discontinuance of the indirect
subsidy on green vegetables which were benefiting from the fact
that their prices were not controlled.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed to the proposal to set
up a working party, believing that this was exactly the type of
question suitable for detailed study by a working group. The
legal question involved seemed to hinge on two facts, namely,
the extent of actual damage Chile was likely to suffer from the
suspension of the subsidy, and the intrinsic values of the two
products with respect to their particular use in Australia.
Besides these, there might be technical questions in studying
which the Working Party would need help from independent technical
experts. He would therefore suggest that the F.A .O. be approached
in the first instance and requested to give assistance.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) also agreed to the proposal to refer
the question to a working party, and added that in studying the
question the working party should not confine its attention to
Article XVI, but also to Article III, paragraph 8 (b) and 9,
because it was a question of the impact of subsidies on substitut-
able goods rather than of an impairment of negotiated benefits.
Reference should also be made to paragraph 1 of Article XI, which
prohibits the use of restrictions other than duties, taxes or
other charges, whether made effective through quotas, benefits or
other measures.
Mr. ALFONSO (Chile) thought it was necessary for him to re-
fute certain facts given by the Australian representative. GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 4.
Referring to the statement by Australia that the demand for
nitrate was limited to industrial purposes, Mr. ALFONSO said
that Australia was known to have been desirous of obtaining
nitrate in great quantities for agricultural uses, and supported
his argument by quoting from various statements made by Australian
representatives at F.A.O. meetings, and further illustrated
figures for Australian import of Chilean nitrate.
Mr. ALFONSO then emphasized again that his Government was
not asking for a preferential treatment for Chilean nitrate, but
only that it be given an equal opportunity to compete in a free
market, and pointed out that if nitrate was not relatively suit-
able for Australian soil, then competition would naturally not
help its sale in that country. The present greater demand by
Australian producers for ammonium sulphate than nitrate could
not be regarded as indicating their preference for the former
as it had been made cheaper by the discriminatory subsidy.
Referring to the remarks of the Belgian representative
Mr. ALFONSO pointed out that the unequal treatment accorded to
the two like products clearly interfered with competition, and
hence nullified Australia's undertaking to admit nitrate on a
competitive basis under duty. The action clearly also contra-
verted the basic principle of most-favoured-nation treatment
embodied in Article I: 1. Furthermore, the spirit of Article
XVI was not respected, although it would not be necessary to go
into the details of the provision. Wherever Article XXIII: 1
(b) referred to "any measure, whether or not it conflicts with
the provisions of this agreement, the case clearly falls under
the latter category."
Mr. WALKER (Australia) replied that most of the points
mentioned by the Chilean representative were suitable for detailed
study by the working party, but he would reply briefly as follows:
It was not his impression that the decline in the import of nitrate
into Australia was attributable to the abolition of subsidy;
figures showed clearly that the decline had begun before that
action was taken. He would further point out that the figures
presented by Chile did not agree with his own data, but this
might be due to the inclusion or exclusion of re-exports or to
dissention between Chilean export and Australian import subsidies
owing to the lapse of time for shipments to reach Australia. The GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 5.
import of nitrate for industrial uses, as for the manufacture of
other fertilizers, was never covered by the subsidy designed to
benefit agricultural producers.
The CHAIRMAN summed up the discussions and suggested a pro-
cedure for the study of this question. Besides the facts in
relation to Australia's trade and production of the products, and
the legal implications of the provisions of the Agreement, the
working party might have to study several technical questions,
and for this purpose they might need to consult with inter-govern-
mental organizations. He suggested that the Executive Secretary
should, in the first instance, enquire if the F.A.O. regional
office attached to the E.C.E. in Geneva had any experts on fertili-
zers, and if not, then other organizations should be approached.
If the Working Party so desired, consultation with experts could
be arranged by the Executive Secretary. With regard to the legal
aspects of the question, certain articles of the Agreement referred
to in the Chilean declaration (GATT/CP.4/23), and the representatives
of the United States and Canada had supported the view that dis-
cussion should take place under paragraph 1 of Article XXIII.
The Working Party, therefore, had to determine whether benefit
accruing to Chile had been impaired. Other provisions of the
Agreement referred to at this discussion were Article XVI, Article
I and Article II: 2 and 4. The applicability of these provisions
was, however, doubted by certain other representatives. These,
as well as those referred to by the Belgian representative, namely
Article XI: I and Article III: 8 (b) and 9, should also be examined
by the Working Party. Following the precedent of past sessions,
the CHAIRMAN suggested that a small working party consisting of
5 members should be set up and given sufficiently broad terms of
reference which, he proposed as follows:
"To consider the arguments submitted by the delegations
of Australia and Chile, with respect to the Australian
subsidy on ammonium sulphate, and to make appropriate
recommendations to the Contracting Parties with refer-
ence to the relevant provisions of the Agreement".
In reply to a question by the Chilean representative, the CHAIRMAN
said that the Executive Secretary would make an enquiry about the
availability of experts in Geneva, and would notify the Working
Party what technical assistance could be obtained. GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 6.
Mr. EVANS (United States) suggested that the Working Party
should consider first whether, and to what extent, it needed
technical assistance before steps were taken by the Executive
Secretary to obtain it, since otherwise a massive amount of
information might be assembled to serve no useful purpose.
In reply the CHAIRMAN said it was his understanding that
the Executive Secretary should be asked to ascertain whether
expert assistance was available; the decision as to whether such
assistance was called for would in any case be made by the Working
Party itself.
The proposal to set up a Working Party, and the proposed
terms of reference having been approved, the CHAIRMAN, with the
concurrence of the meeting, appointed the following contracting
parties as members of the Working Party:
Australia United Kingdom
Chile United States
Norway
with Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) as Chairman.
2. 1950 Tariff Negotiations: Other Plans and Arrangements.
The CHAIRMAN recalled the discussions on February 27 and 28
when it was agreed that the subject be reverted to after 20 March,
the date set for the reply to the questionnaire relating to
tariff negotiations. Meanwhile, he invited discussion on any
other points which might be disposed of before that date.
Mr. IMHOFF (Federal Republic of Germany) made a statement in
which he made four points: His Government regretted that sections
of the new German customs tariff could not be supplied to contract-
ing parties until the middle of May; his Government wished to be
allowed the same extension of time limit to 15 July for submission
of requests on governments requesting concessions from Germany
as those governments. The import equalization law relating to
agricultural products was neither restrictive nor discriminatory
and would be in force only until June 30, 1950, and his Government
might have to resign its position if other countries intended to
increase their customs tariffs. (The original text of the state-
ment is annexed to this summary record).
Mr. Van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) would like to know first,
why the German Federal Republic could not submit its lists of
requests by 15 June; as the tariffs of the other countries were GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 7.
already available to the German Government it would not have the
same difficulty in preparing such lists as would other countries
because of the absence of a German customs tariff until May of
this year. He also wished to know whether the import equali-
zation system would be completely terminated by 30 June. Thirdly,
he enquired to which governments the German representative alluded
when he intimated that other countries might intend to increase
their customs tariffs; the continued binding of existing tariffs
contained in the GATT Schedules was being considered by the Con-
tracting Parties and the intention had been demonstrated that the
Schedules were to be revalidated with limited alterations only in
exceptional cases and in accordance with Article XXVIII. It
would be interesting to know whether the information which the
German representative referred to related to any contracting
parties or other governments. Further, as there was no German
tariff in existence it was also puzzling to hear that the German
Republic was contemplating an increase in its tariffs.
Mr. IMHOFF (Germany) replied that no specific governments
were mentioned in the communication which he had received from
his Government but he would point out that a similar assertion
was made in a statement submitted earlier by the Netherlands
delegation.
Mr. Van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) replied that the document
to which he believed the German representative referred contained
a proposition relating to the re-imposition of existing tariff
rates after the liberalization of trade and not to any increase
in tariff rates.
Mr. IMHOFF (Germany) referring to the question by the Nether-
lands representative said that although he himself was not certain
as to the exact meaning of his Government's instructions it was
clear that since the pre-war German tariff had been in force since
1902 and had become obsolete, a thorough revision was necessary.
Besides it was also desirable on technical grounds to have a new
tariff on an ad valorem basis. At any rate, the German delegation
had declared a week ago that its Government would abide by the
principle laid down in paragraph 3 (iv) of the Memorandum on
Tariff Negotiations and that it had no intention to increase its
tariffs.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) thanked the German representative GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 8.
for his answer to the question on the German import equalization
system and for the confirmation that the system would be com-
pletely abolished on 30 June, 1950.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) wished to associate himself with
the remarks of the Danish representative and added that it would
be desirable if the German requests could be sent out as soon as
possible as there was no reason why the postponement of the date
for the submission of lists of requests by contracting parties
to Germany should entail any delay in the other direction, the
tariffs of the other governments having been available to the
German government. The objective of avoiding competitive raises
of tariffs should not be defeated; if delays and obstacles
similar to those encountered at Annecy were not to occur again at
Torquay a late revision of its tariff by any participating govern-
ment must be avoided.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the question be left for reconsider-
ation after March 20.
The CHAIRMAN recalled the statement made by the Netherlands
representative at the 12th meeting, which, he pointed out, should
be discussed under this agenda item, as it primarily concerned
tariffs.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) felt that it would be unnecessary
to appoint a working party to study the question; by so doing the
Contracting Parties might waste much time in endless references
to the provisions of the Agreement. The precise incidence of
particular tariff rates on the trade of a country and especially
the economic effect of tariffs was all but unascertainable. Even
if the protective effect of a tariff could be demonstrated in
numerical figures, which was obviously not the case, it would still
be difficult to see what action could be taken to implement the
Netherlands proposal. He would therefore suggest that contracting
parties bear in mind the provisions of paragraph 2 (d) of Article
17 of the Havana Charter and negotiate in accordance with the
relevant rules in the Memorandum on Tariff Negotiations. He hoped
that the proposal to have this studied by a working party would
not be pressed. Finally, Mr. SHACKLE wished to observe that the
action and consultation contemplated in the last part of Mr. Spier-
enburg's statement at the 12th meeting should be conducted within
the terms of the General Agreement. GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 9.
Mr. EVANS ( (United States) thanked the Netherlands delegation
for the good service it had done in reminding contracting parties
of the provisions of Article 17: 2(d) of the Havana Charter. He
would draw attention to the fact that in past negotiations the
United States had agreed to lower substantially its tariffs in
exchange for the binding of lower tariffs by other countries.
The United States had observed and would continue to observe that
principle in conducting its negotiations and there was no reason
why the principle could not be observed in practice without
elaborate stipulations.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) wished to associate himself with the
remarks of the United States representative and assured the con-
tracting parties that Canada would give special attention to this
rule in the forthcoming tariff negotiations.
Mr: Van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) agreed with the United
Kingdom representative that it would be difficult to compare
different levels of tariffs. However, he felt that a valuable
yardstick had been given by the Chairman, that is, the equality
of access to international markets, the absence of quantitative
restrictions and the general reduction of tariffs, which were
the chief objectives of the Areement. He was gratified to hear
the remarks of the Canadian, United Kingdom and United States
representatives that this principle would be observed at the
forthcoming negotiations.
In summing up the CHAIRMAN said that the discussion had
clearly shown that contracting parties recognized the importance
of the rule that "the binding against increase of low duties or
of duty-free treatment should in principle be recognized as a con-
cession equivalent in value to the substantial reduction of high
duties or the elimination of tariff preferences." Since there was
no support for the proposal to set up a working party it would
suffice to record that the Contracting Parties took note of the
statement delivered by the chairman of the Netherlands Delegation
on March 6, 1950 (GATT/CP.4/SR.12) and the subsequent discussions.
3. Review of Brazilian Internal Taxes (GATT/CP.3/42, para 19).
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the report of Working Party 7
of the Third Session and especially to paragraphs 17 to 19 thereof,
which stated that the Brazilian Government had already called the GATT/CP. 4/SR. 15
Page 10.
attention of the Brazilian Congress to all existing laws providing
for different levels of taxation with respect to domestic and
imported products in order to bring those laws into conformity
with Article III of the General Agreement and that a statement
had been made by the Brazilian Delegation that its Government was
willing to send a further message to Congress asking it to proceed
as soon as possible with amendment of all such laws and in particu-
lar the law of 1948. The question was to be reviewed at this
session in the light of action taken by the Brazilian Government.
Mr. MOREIRA DA SILVA (Brazil) stated that according to the
information available although the Administrative branch of his
Government had made recommendations, the Brazilian Congress had
so far not acted upon them. The Contracting Parties would be
informed when the legislature had proceeded with any such amend-
ments.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that he understood that
previous delays in such action had been due to Congressional pro-
cedures relating to budget matters. It was not clear whether
provision had been made for such amendments in the budget for the
current year. He would therefore hope that a specific statement
on the steps taken would be made during the session.
Mr. PHILIP (France) remarked that the reply had been long
expected. In view of the long delay he would expect that at
least some indication be given even if it related only to adminis-
trative action in proposing the amendments to Congress.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) trusted that as detailed infor-
mation as possible would be supplied before the end of this
session.
Mr. EVANS (United States) suggested that it would be helpful
if information could be supplied on specific actions taken with
respect to each of the laws referred to in the Working Party report.
Mr. MOREIRA DA SILVA (Brazil) regretted that he was not able
at the moment to give the information requested, but said he would
telegraph his Government at once to ask for precise information,
adding that he appreciated the disappointment which had been
caused to the other contracting parties.
The CHAIRMAN proposed, and the meeting agreed, to leave the
matter on the Agenda and to revert to it before the end of this
session.
The meeting adjourned at 5.40 p.m. GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 11.
A N N E X
Declaration made by Mr. Ludwig Imhoff, the
Observer for Germany at the 15th Meeting
on 14 March, 1950, (Original text provided
by the German delegation).
Mr. Chairman,
Will you allow me to answer some questions which have been
put to the German Delegation in the course of the last plenary
meetings.
Firstly, different Delegations have expressed their wish to
obtain in advance sections of the new German customs tariff draft.
Therefore, I have requested my Government to give me information
if sections of our customs tariff draft could be submitted in
advance. My Government has now informed me that - at its regret -
it will not be possible to do so, because a new draft must be an
harmonious whole, and besides there are technical reasons why
singular sections cannot be submitted before. The complete
draft of the customs tariff will be submitted by the middle of
May, as it has been stated in the plenary meeting of the 28
February, 1950.
Secondly, according to the wishes of the Delegation of the
United Kingdom and other Delegations, the Federal Republic agrees
to postpone until the 15th of July the term of the 15th of June
for acceptance of the lists of requests of the other countries.
But on our side, I think, we should also have the possibility to
send our lists of requests in a corresponding delay to those
countries to whom we shall not yet have sent lists of requests on
the 15th June and who will send us their lists of requests not
earlier than the 15th of July.
Thirdly, in the plenary meeting of the first of March,
according to the wish of the Delegation of Denmark, the German
Delegation has made a preliminary statement about the German law
concerning the Import Equalization on agricultural products. As
a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture has now arrived,
some details can be given, which may be of interest also for other
delegations. The German Import Equalization Law has been changed
in such a manner that it is in no way of restrictive character.
By changing the equalization amounts the existing internal prices
are not altered. Neither is the Import Equalization a discrimin-
ation to any other country. Under the conditions now existing GATT/CP.4/SR.15
Page 12.
it will be uniform for all countries. The Import Equalization
is a transitional measure. The law on the Import Equalization
will be in force until the 30th of June this year. In the mean-
time the number of items under equatlization amounts has become
smaller and also the amounts have been diminished.
Besides may I mention, news has reached my Government that
other States have the intention to increase the customs tariff
rates. My Government is very impressed by this news. It would
be a difficult situation for Germany if other States would come
to a considerable raise of customs duties. Therefore, my Govern-
ment has instructed me to make a reserve as follows: If other
States should increase their customs tariff rates, the Federal
Government would have to prepare similar measures, that means the
Federal Government would have to follow the lead.
U-29 |
GATT Library | hr021sr8640 | Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 21, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.5/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hr021sr8640 | hr021sr8640_90270122.xml | GATT_142 | 316 | 2,054 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR.5/Corr. 1 RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 21 novembre 1930
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: FREMCG BILINGUAL
&9i2.afL'i& PARTIEiL~) /
2 iJ t t Sos.~±
Cor Ae ha i
LlliItely)asdtate.Liermi"th)..undertaking"i-A" .>6elie rlU er taCJl' .
to r en subsuo th parauraph, and .- -etherefor:
trtic'ii povide' thlntriecnundertakeracting 24 cotr cde to
dutiess u@( eU. t ir s me1 ioued r icnl'oard ili th Ardesigned i :n.I
e only: y C)ublic healtic uihoritiest cxriublicor plthli rposes puOLXPOs.
.t 7as nwhyclearshouldt ehcecessary to conclude an intere1 inlltr-
convention to achieve a result which each country might l cca..wiahtain 'it'
nt measures. On the other hand, in the matter of facilities to be GC: ut
for the importation of the same products by commercial firms (whichci i Ji
d to be the aim of tnt ales 2 and 3), the Convention would no loggerld o lo
any obligatory character. chlara
se reasons Mr. DE POLA felt thec-`tl t dnvention would have woulu
imited in its scope and carefully revised if they wanted to reduce to to rcd
um the inevitable difficultiess which its.-!ceptance would involve.d invoi
uO:.P~~i.DE~fL L. LA. k. IJ:.SEARCH JL t
le per stipule
pricv L' dc;dirtic- dc do-pvaliu Sl_1 Lct.:;;élever~.es'c drois eanc
(rA d~ltiior uc:doti ct' -~O~.ei_ pr.u: ~oat' ft.fet estinés à titre
"On nc cotcx ;lcn ,LLO I..OULAlLALO:ij tra I~~ IL;C-:33e . Cmpre
fcilti!ts. a cton~l~r aILcX. j:1i 3ort-a,-L'- Qo (.w . 0odacilités àp
( - : Ia l C c(- L LOr t-Lt2 'S i S,.maisons commerciales illm
: t )in_- convcntio p~rd tout cr'~uoii~a~i';
ITOLUL. Cici oL i L. t 0 t. k; .. .i i.lrJ t I-it Ion
~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
c .vra t Ltri rt s , c S tr clt dai.-. on P.7C) devtrait être restreins sa por
VruL c 1U illd a i ;L-li L 0 itJl'eut.iiréduire au minimum lesdiffs |
GATT Library | wq067yc7131 | Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Monday, 6 November, at 10.30 a. m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 7, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.5 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wq067yc7131 | wq067yc7131_90270121.xml | GATT_142 | 2,176 | 14,024 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP. 5/SR. 5
7 November 1950
CONTRACTING PARTIES ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Fifth Session.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Terquay, on
Monday, 6 November, at 10.30 a. m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. French Export - Restrictions on Hides and Skins
2. Status of Protocols (GATT/CP. 5/15)
3. Draft Agreement on the Importation of
Insecticides (GATT/CP/79)
1. French Export Restrictions on Hides and Skins
Mr. BROWN (United States) apologised for the fact that, though the
item had been proposed by the United States, no paper had been submitted to the
Contracting Parties. The reason was that they where not yet in a position to
know a ll the facts, pending the conclusion - expected within the next few days -
of consultations with French officials, which were taking place in Washington.
He therefore suggested deferring the discussion, and M. LECUYER (France)
supported his proposal.
The Contracting Parties agreed to defer the question to a later stage
in their deliberations.
2. Status of Protocols (GATT/CP.5/15)
The CHAIRMAN referred. to the important aim of achieving a uniform
text for the General Agreement which, at the Fourth Session, had induced the
Contracting Parties to pass a resolution recommending the signature or acceptance
of all outstanding protocols.
As regarded Protocol No. 2 (special l protocol relating to Article XXIV)
he was happy to report that the New Zealand Government was taking steps
toward its acceptance. Thle Australian Delegation had ala advised that their
Government was taking similar action.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) stated that on 12 October he had received a
communication from Canberra advising that his Government had approved a
recommendation that the protocol be accepted. He had no further news.
Mr. de CASTRO - MENEZES (Brazil) informed the Chairman that steps had
been taken by his Government for deposit of an instrument of acceptance. He
also announced that the Annnecy Protocol had passed the Chamber of Deputies and
was now before the Senatc.
Mr. U SAW OHN TIN (Burma) referring to Protocol No. 2 and also to
Protocol No. 7 (Protocol Modifying Article XXVI) regretted he had not yet
received instructions in reply to requests addressed to his Government both
by his delegation and by their Embassy in London. He hoped to have such
instructions before the end of the Session. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 5
Page 2
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) referring to Protocol No. 7, said that when
his Government had secured the ratification of the Protocol of Provisional
Application they had asked for powers to deal with such matters as
acceptance of amendments to the General Agreement. Unfortunately, the
extent of the powers granted them would not enable them to accept the
protocols in question. On the other hand, the load of work on their
parliament had been so great that there had been no oppertunity to submit
the protocols for approval, but he assured the contracting parties that
they would do so as soon as it was possible. What he had said of
Protocol 7 applied to all other protocols which were as yet unsigned by
Chile.
The CHAIRMAN expressed his satisfaction with the considerable
progress that had been made and, with regard to the difficulties of Chile
andc Burma, he understood that the Legal Working Party was at present
considering a provision which would, if accepted, solve the problem.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) wished to reinforce the
recommendations of the Chairman because, speaking for his own Government,
they had been somewhat embarrassed by the absence of a clear text. They
had published for their own purposes a text of the Agreement which did not
exactly correspond with the text preposed by the Secretariat, and though he
assumed, that the text prepared by the Secretariat was the correct one, the
discrepancy clearly illustrated the difficulties arising from the fact that
signatures to protocols were still outstanding.
Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) pointing out that delays were not
always caused by contracting parties themselves, said that the signature
of certain protocols by Czechoslovakia had been delayed by the fact that
the Legal Department of the United Nations had refused to accept an instru-
ment of acceptance by Czechoslovakia containing a reservation of the right
of subsequent ratification. He felt that countries should be left free to
sign protocols in a manner corresponding to their legal codes.
M. ROYER (Deputy Executive Secretary) replied that similar cases to
that mentioned by Czechoslovakia had been found, and that, after
discussion, a formula of acceptance had been arrived at, which provided
safeguards for the contracting parties concerned and was acceptable to the
Legal Department of the United Nations. The essence of the formula was
that a Government would accept a protocol in its capacity of a contracting
party to the General Agreement. In other words, the Government, acting
under the Protocol of Provisional Application, would in effect reserve the
rights of its Legislature.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) pointed out that in his case there were no
formal difficulties , and that if the formula alluded to by the Chairman
were approved by the Contracting Parties, there would be no further difficulties
as far as he was concerned.
Dr. KARTADJOEMENA. (Indonesia) stated that all legislative measures
had been initiated for the acceptance of Protocol No. 7 and that, despite the
delay which had ensued, he was confident the matter would seen be dealt with
by his Government. GATT/CP.5/SR.5
Page 3
M. LECUYER (France) asked for distribution of the formula
mentioned by M. Royer and was assured by the Chairman that this would be
done.
3. Draft Agreement on the Importation of Insecticides (GATT/CP/79)
The CHAIRMAN distributed a letter addressed to him by the
Acting Director-General of the World Health Organization, pointing cut
that the draft agreement therete was being submitted to the Contracting
Parties for the advice of their trade experts towards shaping it into a
sound and workable instrument of international trade.
M. ROYER (Deputy Executive Secretary) recalling a request which
the Contracting Parties had received at Annecy from the Directer-General of
UNESCO and to which they had responded by successfully elaborating a draft
which was subsequently submitted by UNESCO to the acceptance of governments,
said that once again their help was requested by a specialized agency of
the United Nations: the World Health Organization. The Secretariat of the
World Health Organization felt that the draft raised some technical
questions on which customs experts assembled at Torquay could give valuable
advice; that consultation would involve no further responsibility for the
contracting parties and would in no way prejudice the attitude of the
individual governments towards the proposed agreement which was drafted
under the sole responsibility of the World Health Organization.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) agreed that the project before them should be
examined by experts, but it was not only Customs experts who were required.
Many questions had to be investigated: there was the determination as to
Which insects were dangerous to human health: there was the fact that not
only insects but other animals, for instance mice, were harmful, Investi-
gation was also needed into the scope of the draft which appeared too vast.
There were references to the exemption of duties for "raw materials" without
further definition, and to "apparatus for the application of insecticides".
Without a very careful examination, the document would risk having to face
very strong opposition.
He had to ask himself what was the preposed aim of the convention.
The undertaking not to put customs duties or other charges etc. on the
importation of insecticides, raw materials, equipment for the manufacture
or processing, and apparatus for the application of such insecticides and
raw materials did not appear to be at all necessary for national health
organisations. The only field in which it would appear t.. serve a purpose
was in the more restricted domain of private imports.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) said his delegation had no objection to the
draft agreement before them.
Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) expressed his agreement with the
representatives of Italy.
Mr. de CASTRO MENEZES (Brazil) supported the proposal, with the
proviso that its terms should not conflict with Paragraph 8 (a) of Article III
of the Agreement.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) expressed sympathy with the
remarks of the representatives of Italy and Czechoslovakia. He thought that
before embarking upon a course which would make heavy calls on their time, the GATT/CP.5/SR. 5
Page 4
contracting parties should ask themselves whether an international agreement
of this kind were really necessary.
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) associated himself with previous speakers
and submitted that in view of the difficulties of determining which insects
were more harmful and which insecticides more useful in different latitudes,
and in view of the fact that each government should know best what measures.
were more apt to safeguard public health within its frontiers, the initiative
had better be left to the individual governments.
Mr. BROWN (United States) thought the discussion was going beyond
the matter in point. They had before them a formal request for technical
advice on a matter within the competence of the Contracting Parties. Whether
this was or was not the best way to protect public health was a matter for
the World Health Organization to decide. Any technical advice which could be
given would be helpful. Whether or not the draft convention conformed to the
resolution was not for them to decide. His customs experts had examined the
questions raised by the representative of Italy and were of the opinion that
they could administer some such agreement if the U.S.A. were to become a
party to it. Other countries might have difficulties, but they should put
forward suggestions within their field of competence as delegations of
contracting parties to the Agreement.
Mr. MACFARLANE (Southern Rhodesia) expressed his agreement with
Mr. Brown's remarks but thought that their customs policy would be dictated
essentially by the requirements of their public health authorities, whether
or not there was an international convention of the kind proposed.
M. LECUYER (France) while agreeing with previous speakers on many
points they had raised, thought that the contracting parties should give a
helping hand to the World Health Organization and try to clear up at least
those technical questions which came under the competence of the contracting
parties.
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) said that despite his earlier misgivings,
he agreed with the United States' representative that the contracting parties
should examine the draft and provide advice. He had no objections to the
setting up of a working party and took it that it would be generally under-
stood that the contracting parties, in giving advice, were in no way committing
individual contracting parties to the approval of the convention.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that the convention had been
spoken of loosely as coming from the World Health Organization. In actual
fact, the resolution by W.H.O. did not suggest that there should be a
convention of this kind. The request originated from the Acting Director-
General of W.H.O. His delegation world feel more at ease if the request had
been based on a resolution of W.H.O. directed towards the drafting of an
international agreement. He pointed to the vagueness of the terms of the
agreement and quoted as an example the term "apparatus for the application of
insecticides" which might included very different products, ranging from a
spoon to a plano.
Mr. BROWN (United States) on the last point raised by Sir Stephen,
said that it was exactly such questions of technical customs' definition of
products which the Director-General of W.H.O. requested from them, and that it
was their duty, as experts, to supply such technical advice or information. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 5
Page. 5.
Mr. JAYASURYA (Ceylon) wished to express his full sympathy with
any collective effort designed to combat disease. Speaking for his country,
they would have some difficulty in granting duty exemptions to certain
products, at least those which were domestically manufactured, and which were
protected by tariffs. They must not, however, lose sight of the humanitarian
objective of WH.0., and instead of discussing which was the best method of
achieving this objective they should try to find the means of eliminating
any difficulties they had in their tariffs and leave it to W.H.O. to decide
on the best course to take.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) expressed his satisfaction with the previous
remarks which had helped to raise the level of the discussion. He considered
it would be presumptuous and unco-operative not provide the help which
had been requested. He thought contracting parties could look upon the
project before them as a useful educational campaign to show how the cost
of certain products could be reduced by international co-operation. He also
felt that specialists sometimes lost sight of other than technical aspects
of their work and that the convention might help national health organi-
zations in dealing with customs departments. Above all, it should not be
forgotten that one of the main objectives of the GATT was to eliminate
barriers to trade.
The meeting was adjourned at 1 p.m.
Iffi |
GATT Library | yq422dg3084 | Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, 27 February, 1950 at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 27, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 27/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.5 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yq422dg3084 | yq422dg3084_90270081.xml | GATT_142 | 2,300 | 14,326 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP .4/SR.5.
27 February 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADC ORIGINAL; ENGLISH
CONTRACTING: PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des
Nations, Geneva, on
Monday, 27 February, 1950
at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L, D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject Discussed:
1. Final Adoption of the Agenda.
It was decided to discuss Items 13, 14 and:15 together.
A: decision for each would, however, have to be taken
separately.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) said that he would not oppose the
inclusion of Item 13, but questioned whether it was necessary.
He opposed the inclusion of Items 14 and 15.. With regard to
the ground that would be covered by Item 14 Article XII:
4(b) of the Agreement already provided for such a review of
restrictions by 1 January, 1951. He would not, of course,
oppose consideration: by the :Contracting Parties as to how to
carry out this review. But if the United.States proposal
was designed to bring about an exploration of the problem
of the extent to which protective considerations were behind
quantitative restrictions undertaken ostensibly for other
reasons, then the scope of the General Agreement would be
considerably extended and this seemed premature. With regard
to Iterm 15, there was no provision in the Agreement covering
such review, and, again on the grounds of broadening the scope
of the Agreement, he would object to its inclusion. The
Agreement provides only that a country can make a complaint
if it has a. specific grievance.:
Mr. GRADY (United States of America) referred to the note
by the Executive Secretary on the "Provisions of the Agreement
which contemplate the submission of information to the
Contracting Part ies" (GATT/CP, 4/16) and said that this showed GATT/CP.4/SR 5:
Page 2
that the only provision in the Agreement requiring regular
Reporting was: Annex J. but his Delegation would be willing to
include other provisions for reporting under Item 13, and:
he mentioned particularly provisions relating to export
subsidies. Items l4 and 15 were not put forward in any
spirit of accusation but because the United States' Delegation
felt that they were fundamental to problems of the General
Agreement and would have to be faced sooner or later,. He
did not think that discussion on these problems could be
regarded as inappropriate and as to whether they would be
premature, he felt that it was important to investigate such:
fundamental questions as soon as possible,
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) thought that Items 14 and 1 5,
if adopted in their present form, would represent an implicit
accusation by the Contracting Parties against one or more
individual contracting parties, that they had not applied
for or obtained approval under Article XVIII; that not all.:
protective quantitative restrictions had been brought to the
notice of the Contracting Parties. He felt that unless some
specific facts were brought forward,, such an implication would
be unfortunate, He called attention to paragraph 3 (b) (ii)
of Article XII.' which refers: to the incidence of restrictions.
on "classes of products"; a Contracting Party having a
complaint regarding the incidence of restrictions: on a parti-
cular product would take it up in the first instance bi-
laterally.
Furthermore, there was a practical difficulty in accep-
ting these items since they called for the collection of a
great amount of detailed information and facts prior to any
discussion. He could not agree with the United States'
delegate that examination of such restrictions would, in fact,
be an examination of fundamental causes of the general dis-
equilibrium, since the restrictions were rather a manifestation
than cause. Consequently, he opposed the inclusion of Items
14 and 15, but agreed with the delegate of Australia that some
preliminary work might be done in connection with the review
provided for under Article XII (4) (b)
Mr. GRADY (United States of America) repeated that his
Delegation had no accusatory intentions in asking for Item
14 to be placed on the Agenda. He agreed that the review
proposed was covered to a certain extent by the report pro-
vided for under Article XII (4) (b) but he nevertheless felt it GATT/CP.4/SR. 5
Page 3 .
unwise to delay investigation for a year.. His Delegation
was simply proposing that the Ite, be placed on the Agenda,
and he requested that the discussion now be confined to that:
question rather than to issues of substance.
Mr. PHILIP (France) stated he did not interpret the pro-
posal so pessimistically as earlier speakers. He felt that
it was an effort to achieve a clear view of the situation and,
as it was two years since the General Agreement had been
drawn up, it appeared quite normal to review some of its
provisions in the light of a changed situation. It might
not be possible to have all the facts and documents at this
session but it would be helpful to have a preliminary dis-
cussion.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) also supported the United States'
proposal and agreed with the French delegate. He felt that
the review suggested in Items. 14 and 15 would complete the:
main task of the Session, which was to investigate the current
situation with regard to import restrictions. The difficulty
of differentiating between quantitative restrictions imposed
for balance of payment reasons and those imposed as pro-
tective measures should not be allowed to stand in the way of
such an investigation, Furthermore, the distinctions made in
the imposition of such restrictions between essential and
non-essential goods were generally quite arbitrary and very
harmful, He also wished: to raise the problem of double
pricing. The situation in this regard had improved since.
the ECE published a report on it in 1949, but it was still a
serious obstacle to international trade and certainly con-
trary to the principles of freedom of international trade.
He felt that it was closely connected with the problems
raised by the United States, and hoped that it would be
examined together with them.
Mr. GRADY (United States of America) suggested that the
following wording of Item 14 might meet some of the objections
raised: "the Problem of the Protective incidence of Quanti-
tative Restrictions on Imports Imposed as Balance-of-Payments
Measures":
Mr. :HOLMES (United Kingdom) felt that the discussion so
far on these items was sufficient warning of the danger of
overburdening the Agenda with items for which there had been
insufficient preparation on the part of Delegations.
Mr. GRADY'S revised wording was an improvement but he never- GATT/CP .4/SR. 5
Page 4.
theless felt that the review provided for under Article
XII (4) (b) was the right place and time for such a detailed
examination. Furthermore, this time was only ten months
distant, Since it was becoming apparent that. another meeting
of the Contracting Parties was necessary within a year, these
questions might better be raised then. :With regard to Item
13, he had no strong objections, but felt that the third
paragraph of the United States' document (GATT/CP.4/15),
indicated that opportunities could be found at this Session to
discuss this, and suggested that it be referred immediately
to the balance-of-payment Working Party. As to: Item 15,
the Australian Delegate had brought out the fact that this
could not be considered on quite the same basis since there
was no provision for such a review in the General Agreement.
Specific cases would be covered by the complaint procedure,
He felt that long and inconclusive discussions should be
avoided at all costs and only considerable advance preparations
on the part of Delegations could avoid such an outcome.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) referring to Item 13 requested
that the wording be changed as proposed at the first meeting.
He:agreed to the United States' wording for Item 14, and the
retention of Item 15 as it stood, Referring to the report
provided for under Article XII (4)(b), he felt it important
to begin these discussions as contemplated by the:United.
States proposals, and furthermore, considered that the Con-
tracting Parties had had sufficient notice.
Mr SUETENS (Belgium) was also in favour of the inclusion
of these items in the agenda. Quantitative restrictions
were one of the most dangerous weapons in the field of commercial
relations and capable of the worst results It seemed to him
that the Contracting Parties could not refuse to discuss such
matters when brought to their attention even if the specific
field of investigation was not provided for under the Agreement
and even though there was a prospect of a long debate,.
Mr, SCHMITT (New Zealand) said that he had not meant to
imply an accusation on the part of United States.. He felt that
the discussion showed a wide range of opinions as to the natures
type and timing of any investigation on quantitative restrictions.
Therefore, he wished to propose that Items 14 and 15 be deleted
and replaced by a single item reading as follows: GATT/CP.4./SR. 5
Page 5.
"Arrangement for a Review of Quantitative Restiotions."
That would leave the. question of timing and general coverage
to the Contracting Parties for decision when the item came up
for discussion, including whether import or export restrictions
or both were to be covered and whether related to protective
incidence in general or protective incidence for products in:
short supply;
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) supported the United Kingdom pro-
posal that item 13 be sent to the balance-of-payment Working:
Party. With regard to item 14, the report provided for under.
Article XII (4) (b) was adequate. As to item 15, he thought
that the Contracting Parties should not assume any obligation
for the disclosure of information of any powers of investigation
other than those included in the General Agreement. He would
however agree to the proposal of the Delegate of New Zealand,
on the understanding that any such review should not go beyond
what was already provided for in the Agreement; otherwise he
would have to reserve the position of his Government.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) supported the United Kingdom view and
thought that it would be wise to postpone. the proposed investi-.
gation for the present time, It was necessary to get the views
of governments on this question and it might emerge that there.
were reasons other than balance-of-payments or protective
reasons involved in the application of quantitative restrictions.
Consequently careful consideration was necessary. In regard to
item 15, he agreed with the Delegate of Ceylon. Nevertheless,
he would have no objection to giving any explanations required
provided that sufficient time were allowed to provide a complete
picture.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) said that he had no objection to the
inclusion of item 13, although he was: doubtful about the addition
suggested by the Canadian Delegate, since governments already
had many inquiries: to answer from various international organi-
zations and he was reluctant to add to their number. With
regard to items 14 and 15, he was not in principle against their
inclusion but felt that today's discussions showed that the
effect would be unfortunate and consequently supported the
United Kingdom point of view.
Mr. EVANS (United States) wished to clarify some misunder-
standing. Firstly, he would agree to: the United Kingdom pro- GATT/CP 4. /SR. 5
Page 6.
posal that item 13 go to the balance-of-payments Working Party.
As to items 14 and 15, the United States did not intend to have
this session go into the details of the quantitative restrictions
applied, nor to substitute this investigation for the review
provided. for under Article III (4) (b). Although it was quite
correct to say that obligations of the Agreement could be en-
forced by the complaints procedure, his Delegation had considered
that the use of that method of enforcement could be reduced if
there were a frank discussion among contracting parties of the
problems facing them and that it would be helpful for Delegates
to exchange their specialized knowledge and information to serve
as a guide in a more detailed review to take place at a later:
date. The point made by the Delegate for Ceylon regarding
item 15 was quite correct, but he did not agree that it would be
improper for the Contracting Parties to discuss something of
interest to them all even though not specifically provided for
under the Agreements In any case, he felt that the problem
was covered by Article XXV. He hoped that the delegations
would accept these items in the spirit in which they had been
proposed, and agree to a general discussion on the questions
and P tion that might be taken in the future ..
Mr. WALKER (Australia) was opposed to undertaking discuss-
ions not provided for in the Agreement. With regard to item
14, it was clear to everyone :that conditions of general dis-
equilibrium existed and probably the report to be drawn up in
accordance with Article XII (4) (b) would emphasize the need for
a general review of this situation. It seemed to him, however,
that if investigation along the lines suggested by the United
States were now undertaken, it would result in altering the
emphasis of the General Agreement. He would prefer to regard
item 14 as back-ground material to be taken into account in pre-
peration for the 1951 review, :He opposed inclusion of item 15.
Mr,. HOLMES (United Kingdom) suggested that item 13 be re-
moved on the understanding which had been accepted by the United
States, that it should go to the balance-of-payments Working
Party; and that items 14 and 15 be placed on the Agenda in the form
of a single item with the following wording: "The Question of
the Desirability of and, if so, Arrangements for, a Review of
Quantitative Restrictions on (1) Imports and (2) Exports".
The CHAIRMAN said that discussion on this proposal and on the
general question would be continued at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | yv829pm2083 | Summary Record of the First Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.1/Corr and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yv829pm2083 | yv829pm2083_90270115.xml | GATT_142 | 378 | 2,546 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR GATT/CP. 5/SR.1/Corr.
N 13) iove-imber 1950
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS IDOUANIERS BIL2NGUAL
ORiG iwAM: ENGLISH
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
COiTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUtiA M ETINGD OF Tii2 FIRST l ETfENT
Corriaendum
Pawe 2, Point 3,Imter 9: (South African L.port Control)
The statement of' 'r. SAAD should read as follows:
"Mr. SAAD (Intereational ionetaryyFund) .xplained that an- report
that coFld be submitted by thme und at the present tiole on the
fi ancial aspects of Southi African import restrictions would relate
o the restrictions n --. in foece, mut these were to bo teroinated by
tue end of this year; sLch l repom , therrvere, wouLd see-, to seeC
no usefel ew posU. As for tht ncr. resltriction plan which woud come
into force iry S1st uth Afriea on Januar t 1951, hu had received a
cxe-unideion from. the E.ccutivuwBoard welcoming the nea plan as a
step foxyard in the right dirmmtion, but detailed coLaents would have
to be withhold untilethe plan itself hme be.n .n force for soaio time,
He added teat h1..w uld includ. tme Executive Board stateLint in a
letoer to the Chair!an as scon as he received it".
E El,E REIMU DE LA PRZMI2RL SEANCE
Page; 2, section 3à l'imo3: (Restrictl'ns Lh Jliportation de l1Union Sud-
Pfricaine)
la d' laêation dellée AADmmeit Ctre libcl116.o co::u suit:
4. SeADa(Fonda moritfire intvrn0tiorat) explique que tout rapport qui
Ple rait ~tcà umisepa,~act3 Fonds, ;c l'hcure 7tce~le, sur les 'apects fi~-
nanài2s dos restriction'Unh l'importation de ltnion Sud-Africaine aurait
traite ement rectiogs lctudlivi(mntLnevipueur. Or, conme cus restrictions
eoiàent vtr de pp'année a la fin J.;llanW.6Q-' il ee sembJe pas qutun tol
rappore puissu pr~eenter unU Qtility quclconqueé meant au nouveau r6gira
efiedole lere iAisea 4,fctdJ¢; l' janviur 1951 Jans 1 Union Sud-Africaine,
m. Saad a rogu un;seolmunicDtien du ConXsil des Airucteurs du Fonds indiquant
que lca eurslel voie avvc fevutx 1r'nouleau projèt et mutil 1Q considere corme
un pas e avaec ;ans de enda=- dir:rtion; cup>,eint, pour toutes obsvrvations
do:edut'i1,eil y auea eiléu deattonéré quu lo égimo ait 6t6 appliqu6 pendant
un cereain tenps.é eraala tu qu'il inscrtnr 1,p eommunication du Consuil des
Dircetou'sldanseunu leairo éuli1 adrèssera ru er~sident des qu'il scra un
eosesessiom du t-xtQ do ctte coimunication. |
GATT Library | fc541qr9981 | Summary Record of the First Meeting : Held at The Marine Spa, Torquay, England on Thursday, 2 November 1950 at 3.00 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 6, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fc541qr9981 | fc541qr9981_90270114.xml | GATT_142 | 2,294 | 14,645 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 6 November 1950
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST MEETING
Held at The Marine Spa, Torquay, England on
Thursday, 2 Novembr 1950 at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. :WILGRESS (Canadal)
Subjects discussed: 1. Chairman's Opening Speech (GATT/CP.5/18
2. Invitation to Yugoslovavia to Send an Observer
3. Adoption of Agenda (GATT/CP.5/Rev. 2)
4. Order of Business.
1. The Chairman's Opening Speech (GATT/CP. 5/18)
The CHAIRMAN declared open the Fifth Session and delivered an opening
speech (See GATT/CP. 5/18).
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) thanked the ' * for his appreciative
remarks on the arrangements for the conference which, he pointed out, had been
made by the Conference Department of the Coreign Office in collaboration with the
local authorities of Torquay.
Dr. VARGAS-GOMEZ (Cuba) thanked the .s c for his remarks concerning
Cuba and stated that the presence of the Cuba delegation at Terquay was the
result of careful consideration by the Government in the field of foreign economic
policy. The determination had been taken upon the initiation of a process of
adjustments in the country's relations with other countries, which were likely to
have constructive effects on international economy. Cuba had withdrawn from the
Third Session because at that time it could not obtain, within the frame of the
General Agreement, the indispensable protection required to ensure the survival of
important domestic industries. At first the Cuban Government, in an expectant
mood, had absented itself from the Fourth Session and delayed signing or accpting
several protocols. Later, desirous of proving its devotion to international co-
operation, Cuba had accepted the recommendation of the Contracting, Parties and
entered into bilateral negotiations with the United States. Such negotiations
had been initiated in February in a spirit of reciprocal goodwill and under-
standing. The agreement reached, when appreved by the contracting parties, would
meet the requirements of Cuba. Bases of an understanding had also been found
upon which further negotiations here at Tereuay would no doubt make it possible
for Cuba to evercome its difficulties in regard to its textile industry. Though
a fully satisfactory solution had yet to be found with respect to the status of
the preferential system in force between Cuba and the United States, Cuba had
nevertheless obtained from Washington ex offer of occperation for the development
of Cuba' s trade with Europe. The Cunan Government wished to acknowledge the
conciliatory spirit and goodwill whichTh tire United States government had shown
throughout the negotiations. In conclusion, Dr. -. . ! expressed the hope that
the mutual confidence shown in these events would prevail in the activities of
the Contracting Parties to the benefit of the future of International economic
relations.
remarks concerning the presence of the Cuban 'v^>, -.:r J.tive. The Contracting GATT/CP.5/SR. 1
Page 2.
Parties would indeed be handicapped in their work by the absence of one of
its members. The spirit of cooperation and understanding shown by the
Government of Cuba in the happily concluded negotiations was greatly
appreciated by his Government. Mr. BROWN felt that if all the contracting
parties should show the same spirit in the deliberations here the work
confronting the Session would surely be accomplished with great rapidity.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) thanked the Chairman for the welcome he had
extended to these countries which participated in the meetings of the
Contracting Parties for the first time. He assured the Contracting Parties
that Italy, for one, would give full cooperation to the Contracting Parties
in their efforts for the development of sound world economy.
2. Invitation to Yugoslavia to send an Observer
The CHAIRMAN informed the meeting that the Yugoslav enjoy in London
had approached him in the capacity of Chairman of the Contracting Parties on
the question of sending an observer to the Session. It appeared that
Yugoslavia fulfilled the requirement of the Rules 9 of the Rules of Procedure
and could be invited to send an Observer. The CHAIRMAN proposed that the
terms of invitation be based on the model of Rule 8.
The contracting parties agreed to invite the Government of Yugoslavia
to attend the meetings of this Session as an observer and to participate in
the discussions without vete.
3. Adoption of the Agenda. (GATT/CP. 5/Rev. 2)
The CHAIRMAN introduced the Provisional Agena; the latest version
GATT/CP.5/Rev. 2 circulated the day before was only a re--arrangement in a
more logical order of the earlier one, involving no change of substance.
There being no general comments on the Agenda as a whole, the items
were considered one by one.
Items (numbering as according to GATT/CP. 5/Rev. 2) 1 to 6, 8, 10, 11,
13 to 15, 17, 19 to 26, 28 to 30 were approved for inclusion in the Agenda
without discussion.
Item 7: (Review of Import Restrictions). At the suggestion of
the CHAIRMAN, it was agreed that the title of the item be changed to read:
"The Review of Import Restrictions and the Second Reort on Discriminatory
Application of Restrictions".
Item 9: (South African Import Control) Mr. SA_:ED (International
Monetary Fund) explained that any report that could be to submitted by the Fund at
the present time on the financial aspects of South African import restrictions
would relate to the restrictions new in force, but these were to be terminated
by the end of this year; such a report, therefore, would seem to serve no
useful purpose. As for the new restriction plan which would come into force
in South Africa on January 1st 1951, he had receoved e communication from the
Executive Board expressing general approval but detailed comments would have
to be witheld until the plan itself had been in force for some time.
It was agreed that Item 9 shouild be deleted.
Item 12: (Cases of Quantitative Restrictions Applied for Protective Purposes)
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that although the title of the item made no GATT/CP. 5/SR.1
Page 3.
reference to his country it was clear that it related to relations between
France and Belgium, and that his delegation had no objection to its
inclusion in the Agenda or to a frank discussion of the question. A
comprehensive memorandum had recently been received by his delegation from
his government. As this involved some sixty items, the French delegation had
not been able to define its position and if the question were taken up
forthwith by the Contracting Parties, there might have to be prolonged
discussions. The French delegation would therefore prefer that preliminary
consultations should take place between the Belgian and French governments
with a view to exploring the possibility of resolving the differences
without recourse to a decision by the Contracting Parties. His delegation,
however, would have no objection to the inclusion of the item provisionally
if it could be withdrawn at a later date.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that according to information his
delegation had received from the Belgian Ambassador in Paris, the Quai d'Orsay
had agreed to have the matter examined by the Contracting Parties at Torquay
and had intended to instruct accordingly the French delegation, which, in
fact, included the French experts on the matter. As the length and complexity
of the memorandum showed clearly that a detailed examination was called for, he
could see no alternative but for the Contracting Parties to submit it to the
close study of a working party.
Mr. LECUYER (France) reaffirmed that he had received the memorandum
from his Government without accompanying instructions, but his delegation
would ask for those to be given at the soonest possible moment.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) said he could see no objection
to including this item in the Agenda provided the proper procedure envisageed
in Article XXII had been followed by the contracting party proceeding under
Article XXIII. Furthermore, it would appear to be incumbent upon the country
proposing an item of this nature to specify the action or actions on the
part of the contracting party or parties against which the complaint was made,
as well as the provision or provisions which were alleged to have been
infringed.
Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) said he fully shared the doubts
expressed by the representatives of France and the United Kingdom. No
documentation had been supplied to indicate the nature and scope of the
proposed item. With reference to Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure, the
Czechoslovakia delegation would have no objection to the inclusion of the
item provided it was understand that its deletion could be considered on a
later occasion, as an amendment within the meaning of that Rule.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) explained that documentation had not been
supplied because it was thought better to delay this until after having the
views of other delegations which might wish to ask questions or request
specific information. His delegation would all it could to see that the
fullest information was supplied. At the present he could assure the
Contracting Parties that the item referred to real and concrete cases, his
delegation being fully aware of the view of the Contracting Parties that
concrete cases rather than abstract principles should be submitted for judgment.
The CHAlRMAN referring to Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure, confirmed
the view that the deletion of an item from the Agenda could be regarded as an
amendment within the meaning of that Rule. GATT/C.P. 5/SR.1
Page 4.
Item 16: (The Administration of the Agreement) Mr. LECUYER (France)
thought that the title of the item was too restricted, and propose that it
should be amended in such a way as to enable a discussion of the questions
relating to Article XXIX which had been left in abeyance at the last session.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the present working did not prevent the
discussion envisaged by the representative of France. It was not the
intention of the Canadian delegation in submitting its proposal to limit the
scope of the item to what was discussed in the supporting document
(GATT/CP.5/11), which had merely purported to give a general indication of
the nature of questions to be considered.
It was agreed to retain the item with the understanding that any
related questions could equally be considered as falling under it.
Item 18: (Brazilian Internal Taxes) Mr. de CASTRO MENEZES (Brazil)
said that his delegation had no objection to the inclusion of this item but
would reserve its right to discuss it fully at the appropriate time. The
item was then approved.
Item 27: (Amendment of Article XX) At the suggestion of
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kindom) and with the concurrence of Mr. MELANDER
(Norway), it was agreed to insert the words "the last paragraph of
Section II of" after the words "Amendment of........".
Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) printed out that no documentation
had been supplied in respect of this item, or items 21, 25 and 26, and
appealed for an early submission of supporting documents.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) expressed sympathy with the
views of the representative of Czechoslovakia, adding that a paper relating
to item 27 had been transmitted that day to the Secretariat for distribution.
Mr. LECUYER (France) explained that the question referred to in Item
21, namely the proposed European Coal and Steel Agreement, was still under
discussion between the governments concerned. Similarly, in the case of
Item 25, the position of Indo-China with respect to its foreign relations
was in a fluid state. Although complete independence in the conduct of
its foreign relations had been granted to the associated state of Indo-China,
the question of diplomatic representation abroad was yet to be settled. The
items had been notified and placed on the Agenda by the French Government
as a matter of courtesy as it was expected that intervention by the Contract-
ing Parties would be required at a later date. However, his delegation
would endeavour to supply the necessary information as soon as possible.
In reply to a question by Dr. EOTHA (Union of South Africa), the
CHAIRMAN explained that the Agenda contained an item on "Other Business" in
order to provide for the possibility of discussing any questions which might
arise and which might need to be considered separately.
The Agenda was approved as a whole. The CHAIRMAN then announced the
procedure to be followdd in regard to the pubication of an "Informal
Guidance for the Press" and remained the delegations that corrections to the
draft Guidance which had been distributed should reach the Information Officer
by 1 p.m., Saturday, 4 November. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 1
Page 5.
Order of Business
The CHAIRMAN proposed an "order of business" for the first meetings.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) requested that the consideration of Item 15
be deferred until such time as the Italian experts on the question of
economic development would have arrived.
Mr. DOMINIQUE (Haiti) said that his delegation would appreciate an
early consideration by the working party of the application made by his
government under Article XVIII.
The CHAIRMAN assured the representatives of Italy and Haiti that
the working party appointed to consider the question would no doubt take into
consideration the request of the two representatives when arranging their
order of business.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) wished Item 12 to be discussed and considered
by a working party as soon as possible after the necessary data had been
supplied by the Belgian delegation.
In reply, the CHAIRMAN said that this would be considered when
the necessary papers were received. At the request of Dr. BOTHA (Union of
South Africa), Item 14 would be considered at a later date.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) stated that the Chileman delegation would be
ready to make a statement within two or three days on Item 17.
The Order of Business for the first meetings of the Contracting
Parties was approved.
The meeting rose at 5.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | tz610qr4108 | Summary Record of the First Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Thursday, 23 February, 1950 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 23, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 23/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.1 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tz610qr4108 | tz610qr4108_90270075.xml | GATT_142 | 988 | 6,384 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE f
RESTRICTED
LIM1TED B
ACCORD GENERAL SUR GATT4/P.IVSR.1
LES TARIFS DOUANIER23 February 1 50.9er 6
ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH
- --
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SU MMARY RECORD OFTHE FIRST MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva on Thursday, 23 February,
1950 at 3 pa.
Chairman: Hon. L. Dana WILGRESS (Canada)
1. Election of Chairman.
2. Election of Vice-Chairman.
3. Approval of the Agenda of the Fourth
Ses/1ion (GATT/CP47l/Rev. 1.)
+. Request of the Federal Government of Germany
to send Observers to the present Session. (GATT/TN2/
4/Add. 2)
5. Communication of the Agenda to the Press.
1 :.rman.on of Chaij, :
The Executive Secretary, in the Chair, proposed that
the Contracting Parties, in accordance with Rule 10 of
the: Rules of Procedure, elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Smuetens (Belgiu), seconded by Mr. Lecuyer (France)
proposed Mr. L. Dana Wilgress (Canada), who was declared
o2. cElection f Viae-Chairman
Mr. Wilgressi:took the Chatr and called for nominations
for the Vice-Chairmanship.
Mr. Grady (U.S.A.), supported by Mr. Holmes (U.K.)
and Mr. Walker (Australia), proposed Mr. Max Suetens
(as unanimously selected Vice-Chairman.
of the Ageedaa .of e Fourth Session th92u=1~s
R (GA.TT/CP /1/Ev.1X
The Chairman suggested that the items appearing on
the provisional eagenda be takn and approved one by one
and)items 1 and 2 having already been approved, to start
.ro. item No, 3.' The Contracting Parties approved for inclusion in the
Agenda items 3 to 17 inclusive.
Mr. Benes (Czechoslovakia), supported by Mr. Walker
(Australia) said he was not opposed to the inclusion of
items 18 and 19, calling for a review of the application
of certain quantitative restrictions on imports and exports,
but asked for further information.
The Chairman informed the Contracting Parties that
documents on the two items would be distributed on the
following morning, and the inclusion of items 18 and 19:
was then approved prvisionally , subject to reconsideration
after documents had been examined by the Contracting
Parties.
Item 20 was adopted provisionally after Mr. Holmes
(U.K..)had asked for the circulation of further information
which was promised by Mr. Grady (U.S.A.)
Items 21 to 24 inclusive were approved.
The Chairman declared all items of the provisional
Agenda approved with the exception of items 18, 19 and 20,
the inclusion of which had only been provisionally approved,
subject to reexamination at the following meeting.
It was decided to make tome rearrangement in the order
of the items on the Agenda. Item 20 would follow item il
with which it was closely connected; items 18 and 19 would
follow item 20. Items 8 and 13, which involved times-
consuming discussions and the setting up of working parties,
would be placed between items 3 and 4.
The Agenda as a whole, subject to final approval of
items 18, 19 and 20 was approved.
4.Request of the Federal Government of Germany to send
Observers to the Present Session .(GATT/TN2/4/Add.2)
The Chairman said that the presence of observers at the
meetings of the Contracting Parties was generally governed
by Articles 8 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The
Governments which participated in the Annecy negotiations,
and were not yet Contracting Parties , fell under Rule 8
and he wished at this point to express the hope in the name
of all present Contracting Parties that the Observers from
these Governments would feel free to take an active part
in all discussions and deliberations of the present session,
although they would not yet be entitled to vote.
No Rule of Procedure clearly covered the case of the
Government of the Federal Republic of Western Germany, which
had accepted the invitation to participate in the 1950
Tariff Negotiations and the Contracting Parties should GATT/CP.4/SR.1
Page 3
therefore take a decision on the application of the
Federal Republic to send Observers to the Fourth Session,
Mr. Benes (Czechoslovakia): wished to protest against
any decision being taken to allow, the Government of
Western Germany to send observers because he could not
recognise such persons as representing the German State.
Mr. Grady (U.S.A.) proposed that observers from the
Federal Republic of Western Germany be invited to attend
the Fourth Session with the same rights as those enjoyed
by observers admitted under Article 9 of the Rules of
Procedure.
Mr. Walker (Australia) asked whether the invitation
would be extended to the Federal Republic through the
Allied High Commission.
The Chairman replied that the invitation to partici-
pate in the 1950 Tariff Negotiations was sent to the
Allied High Commission for forwarding to the Government of
Western Germany and the affirmative reply was received
from the Allied High Commission. There was now a request
from the Allied High, Commission for permission to be granted
to the Government of Western Germany to send observers.
Mr. Holmes (U.K.), pointing out that when the Rules
of Procedure were drawn up it was impossible to foresee
every contingency, considered it reasonable and useful
for parties to the forthcoming Tariff Negotiations to
attend the session, and acquaint themselves with the work
of the Contracting Parties.
There being no support for the Czechoslovak objection,
the Contracting Parties decided to reply to the Allied
High Commission that the application of Western Germany
to send observers to the Fourth Session to participate
in the discussions, without vote, had been accepted.
5. Communication of the Agenda to the Press.
On the proposal of the Chairman that the items of the
Agenda be communicated to the press, Mr. Holmes (U.K.)
suggested that, if the communication included any comments
on the various items, the draft should be submitted to the
Contracting Parties for approval.
The Chairman informed Mr. Holmes that he was
following past practice in accordance with Rule 38 of the
Rules of Procedure which prescribes approval by the
Chairman of communications to the press. Complying,
however, with Mr. Holmes request, a draft press release
would be distributed to Representatives for approval.
The meeting adjourned at 4.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | bd037rt0246 | Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 18, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.14/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bd037rt0246 | bd037rt0246_90270139.xml | GATT_142 | 124 | 882 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATT/CP.5/SR.14/Corr.1
TARIFFS AND TRADE G.
18 November 1950
ORI.i. : B1,LISE
C01RIRCT PAES
Fifth Session
SUOURTEZNEY MEERECCRDOF 7HE ?0J\H1ET
Corrigendum
Page 8
IBn line 1'3 of Mr,Estrickyt remaorkss" delete t"he wcdeincreased
imports" andw insert the folloing:
"the asserted difficulties of the United States producers.
He quotedw the American vie contained in an article by Clair
Wilcox inW the Charter for orld Trade according to which 'the
real dLr that faces the United States isi not that it wIll
import too mucih but that it wll im.port too little The United
States must peormit foreign godos to displace dmestic goods in
esthe United Stat market and less efficiesnt producers mut shift
to other products and o.ther industries"' No proof.... |
GATT Library | gh020wd8797 | Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Friday, 10 November 1950, at 3.00 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR. 14 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gh020wd8797 | gh020wd8797_90270138.xml | GATT_142 | 4,425 | 28,027 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B.
GATT/CP. 5/SR.14
TARIFFS AND TRADE 13 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay,
on Friday, 10 November 1950, at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman : Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Continuation of Item 9 - Special Exchange
Agreements (GATT/CP. 5/16)
2. Item 8 - Consultations on Recent "hanges in
Import Programmes (GATT/CP . 4/31 and
GATT/CP.5/24)
3, Item 30 - Assured Life of Tariff Concessions
with Respect to Article XIX (GATT/CP.5/22)
1. Continuation of Item 9 - Special Exchange Agreements (GATT/CP. 5/16)
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) suggested that the working party which was to deal
with this question should limit itself to considering whether appropriate pro-
cedures could be worked out for the administration of social exchange agreements,
He agreed with the Cubn representative in that, although sympathetic to the New
Zealand difficulties, he could not accept a formula whereby an obligation would
exist for all of the contracting parties except one. The working party could not
ask New Zealand why it did not wish to join the Fund since the Agreement gave it the
choice, but it could suggest that New Zealand, be not too negative in its attitude
to the alternative. He proposed as a possible formula that, for so long as the
Contracting Parties did not constitute an organization competent to examine and deal
rapidly and secretly with exchange matters, such as devaluation, the contracting
parties should authorise the Fund. to act, not as it would act toward one of its
owm members, but as a technical advisory body .
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) referred to paragraph 6 of Article XV providing
that contracting parties should either become members of the Fund or enter into
a Soecial Exchange Agreement. This obligation was made specific mainly in order to
implement paragraphs 4. and 8. All countries, however, had accepted the obligations
contained in the latter two paragraphs, including New Zealand, Since New Zealand
was unable to comply with paragraph 6 the problem should be approached from a
practical point of view There were in fact two problems before the Contracting
Parties, the immediate one of New Zealand and the long-term question of action
under Article XV. If the practical solution were adopted to the first, an
extension of time would be granted to New Zealand to enable it to carry on, while
other countries would accept its assurance that it would, in the meantime, adhere
to all the other provisions of the Article, including paragraph 4. The second
problem should also be fully examined, by the .working party, particularly the
United Kingdom proposal. It might be directed to submit a report for preliminary
examination at this session; more detailed action to be taken at the Sixth Session.
M. LARRE (France) said that the French delegation considered the terms
of the Agreement obligatory on all members, and this aplied to Article XV and to
paragraph 6. A Special Exchange Agreement had been prepared and there had been no GATT/CP. 5/SR. 14
Page 2.
proposals of amendments. He agreed that it would bo desirable for the
working prty to study this question of procedures for the administration
of special exchange agreements.
The CHAIRMAN said that there was general agreement that the
question be referred to a working party. He had thought it might be possible
to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion at once regarding Burma, Indonesia
and Sweden, since no questions arose in their cases, but there would be no
difficulty in ref referring the matter insofar as it concerned. those three
countries also to the working party. The question of Haiti and New Zealand
was more difficult and the working party should take into account the various
suggesti ns for action to be taken. He proposed therefore a working party
with terms of reference as follows:
(a) To consider the position of those contracting parties
which are not members of the International Monetary Fund and
have not yet complied with the resolution adopted at the
Fourth Session of the Contracting Parties requiring such
countries to enter into a Special Exchange Agreement
not later than 2 'November 1950.
(b) To examine, in the light of this consideration, the need
for the adoption of procedure for the administration of
Special Exchange Agreements, and, if such procedures
are, in the circumstances necessary, to make recommendations
concerning such procedures .
and meinbershiD as follows:
Chairman: M. G. JANSON (Belgium):
Members: Belgium Haiti Sweden
Burma Indonesia United Kingdom .
France New- Zealand United States
Tais a approved.
2. Item 8 - Consultations on Reccnt Changes in Import Programmes
GATT/CP.4/31and GATT/CP.5/24
The CHAIRMAN referred to the report of the working party at the
Fourth Session (GATT/CP.4/31) and to the letter addressed to the Fund initiating
consultation (GATT/CP.5/24). Background material supplied by the Fund concerning
the countries, in question had been. circulated to each country as secret
documents and a statement by the United Kingdom had also been circulated as
Secret/CP/11. He recalled that towards the end of the Third Session of the
Contracting Parties the United Kingdom, in view of the heavy drain on its
financial. reserves, announced the imposition of severe new measure to curtail
imports from hard currency, and notably fromdollar, areas .The United Kingdom
informed the Contracting Parties of this intensification of restrictions and
expressed its willingness to enter into consultation in accordance with the
provisions of Article XII: 4(b). The United Kingdom indicated, however, that
it would be difficult to undertake such consultations immediately and it was
accordingly agreed that they should be deferred to the Fourth Session.. At the
Fourth Session the matter was considered Again. As it was then known that a
number of other contracting parties had intensified their restrictions, the GATT/CP. 5/SR. 14
Page 3.
working party established for balance of payments questions was asked to
determine which contracting parties "were substantially intensifying import
restrictions and should therefore be invited to consult with the Contracting
Parties in accordance with Article XII: 4(b) ". GATT/CP.24./31). The
Working Party reported that the question of intensification .arose in the case of
Australia, Ceylon, Chile, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, and
the United Kingdom. In the course of the discussions the
representatives of those countries said that they we re willing to enter into
consultation with the Contracting Parties regarding the recent changes in
import programmes, and it was accordingly recommended that consultations
under Article XII: 4(b) be undertaken with those countries in those terms.
The representative of the International Monetary Fund indicated, however,
that the Fund could not be ready in the limited time available during the
Fourth Session to enter into consultations with the Contr.cting Parties
with resoect to all those countries. Accordingly the Working Party
recommended that the countries be invited to consult at the Fifth Session
and the Fund be formally advised that such consultations would take place.
These recommendations were approved by the Contracting Parties.
On 2 June 1950 the Chairman of the Contracting Parties informed
the Fund that these consultations would take place at the Fifth Session and
initiated a consultation in accordance with. the. arrangements between the
Contracting Parties and the Fund. The fund provided, before the opening
of the Session substantial documentation, entitled. "Background Information",
and had also sent a strong delegations prepared to participate e in the necessary
consultations.
The Contracting Parties had now to decide on a procedure for the
carrying out of their consultations with the eight contracting parties
involved , and for the consultation with the Fund which was. required. He
suggested that as the work was extremely detailed it would be advisable to
set up a working party immediately and refer the entire question to it.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United-Kingdom) agreed that the question
be referred immediately to a working party and wished only to clarify one
point. He referred to the Chairman' s résumé of the histroy of the consul-
tations and pointed out that in the case of the United Kingdom government
this, was the third session during, which the Contracting Parties were concerned
with the consultation. For the other governments involved it was the second.
He felt that , in the normal course of events, consultations of this kind should
be completed soon after the action with which they were concerned, and should
concern themselves only with the situation existing at the time .He did not
wish to complain about events as they had developed in this case, but only
to point out that the situation was anomolous. If the present situation,
whereby a single consultation had extended. ever a period seventeen months,
were claimed as a precedent, it would introduce into a vital part of the
Agreement a fundamental change of principle. He wished to make it clear
that this should not be allowed to happen, On that understanding he was
prepared to proceed immediately with the working Party and enter into free and
full consultations on the intensifications of import restrictions which took
place in 1949 without limiting the scope of these consultations to the
situation as it then was.
Mr.. BROWN (United States:) also regretted that these consultations
had extended over so long a period and welcomed the attitude of the United
Kingdom representative in this matter. He supported the Chairman's suggestion
that the. question be referred immediately to a. Working Party. GATT/CP.5/SR. 14
Page 4.
The CHAIRMAN proposed as terms of reference:
"To initiate the consultations with Australia, Ceylon, Chile,
India, New- Zealand, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and the.
United Kingdom under the provisions of paragraph 4(b) of
Article XII and in the course of these consultations to
consult with the- International Monetary fund as provided
for in paragraph 2 of Article XV and to report back to the
Contracting Parties"..
and membership as follows:
Chairman: Mr. J. J. DEUTSCH (Canada)
Members: Australia. France
Belgium Italy
Canada . Pakistan
Chile United Kingdom
Cuba United States
Finland
This was approved.
5. Item 30 - Assured Life of Tariff. Concessions with respect
to Article XIX (GATT/CP. 5/22).
Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) referred to decument GATT/CP/83-
Withdrawal of Item 1526(a) under the Previsions of Article XIX, submitted
by the United States. The actual case involved was sufficiently important
to countries such as Italy and Czechoslovakia but these particular interests
were a secondary i sue compared to the fundamental problem which might face
any one of the contracting parties. This was the first time that Article
XIX had l been invoked and the commercial community would carefully watch
whatever decision was arrived at, It was the general opinion that the,
weakest part of the Agreement ms the uncertain legal basis with regard to
many of the exceptional measures. The most important of these was that
contained in Article XIX. The Contracting Parties should use this occasion
to clarify the interpretation of the Article and he requested that the issue
be regarded in that light rather than only as between two countires. The
economies of the countries involved would not be ruined whatever conclusion
as reached, The principle of whether the duraticn of concessions was assured
or whether they could be withdrawn unilaterally at any time was of great
imoportance, however, and whatever the conclusion in this matter it would
establish a precedent of great importance.
Mr. BROWN (United States) said that he was indebted to the
Czechoslovak representative for raising the question and to the Contracting
Parties for the opportunity of discussing it. He agreed that since it was
the first case under Article XIX the manner of handling it would be important,
and hu also agreed that the principle involved was one of great significance
to the Agreement.
His delegation agreed in the main with parts I and II of the
Czechoslovak paper. Article XIX could certainly not be interpreted in the
sense that it was sufficient for a contracting party to announce that an
emergency had arisen. Paragraph 1 of Article XIX also required proof of
"unforeseen developments" and that a product was being imported in "such
increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious GATT /CP. 5/SR. 14
Page 5.
injury" He also agreed that there must be a relationship of cause and effect
between the increase of imports resulting in injuries and the obligating
assumed by members, and that it was not sufficient merely to claim an increase
in imports.
Mr. Brown said that he would first recall the origin of this
Article and then describe how the United States had approached the problems
in this particular case. Article XIX had been inserted into the Agreement
as a safety valve, since in such an instrument involving so many items it was
not possible to say at the time of drafting that certain of the rates agreed
upon might net cause or threaten injury at a lcatcr date. The fact of
its being in the Agreement and available for use meant that contracting
parties were generally able to go further in their initial concessions
than might otherwise have been possible, and in that the existence of
Article XIX had contributed to a larger measure of reduction than might
otherwise have been the case.
The United States had set about the question of how the re-
quirements of this Article should be fulfilled in the following manner, Firstly,
the responsibility for administering appplications under this Article was
placed in the hands of the United States Tariff Commission .hich was a
bipartisan body of experts with an export staff. By older of the President
it was empowered to consider applications under Article XIX, to hear all
persons with any interest in the matter, to make such investigations as it
deemed necessary, and to make recommendations direct to the President on its
conclusions. In February 1948 the Tariff Commission had prepared a document
for the guidance of the public, setting forth the procedures which would have
to be followed to establish a case under Articlee XIX and the criteria which. it
felt were relevant in any judgment as to whether the Article were being
properly invoked. This document was public and had been widely circulated.
In describing the criteria considered relevant, this document made the same
points made in the Czechoslovak paper, i. e. that an increase in quantities
would have to be proved, that unforeseen conditions had arisen, that the
increase was the result of the concession and that the product cencerned
was entering the country under such conditions as to cause or threaten
serious injury. The document explained- what was m.ant by an "increase".
The increase had to be absolute rather than relative to domestic production
and in comparison with a representative period. The decument discussed the
requirements for unforeseen developments and the question of what was meant
by a result of the concession, and went on to analyse what might constitute
evidence of injury.
In the case in question, the industry affected made an appli-
cation to the Tariff Commission. The latter made a preliminary investigation
and concluded that there was a prima facie case sufficient to justify a
study. The Tariff Commission then gave public notice to all concerned
that a study was to be undertaken and that public hearings would be held to
Which any person or group or country could come and present their views if
they so desired. It was the custom of his government to see that these
notices were circulated to the various Embassies and Legations in Washington,
in addition to wide notice in the press, trade journals, chambers of commerce,
etc. Hearings were held and extensive testimony was taken, but the Tariff
Commission was still not satisfied that it had adequate knowledge en which
to base a judgment, so exports on hats were sent into the field to look into
the conditions in the various factories and the competitive factors involved, and to
have discussions with members of the trade. As a result of this investigation
and of the hearings, the Tariff Commission concluded that a case had been made
out under the escape clause, and recommended that actien be taken on the GATT/CP. 5/SR. 14
Page 6.
concession granted in Geneva on certain types of hats and that, in view of
the seasonal factors involved, this action be taken no later than 1 December.
At the time the recommendation was made a report was submitted to
the President which was published at the end of September. At the time the
recommendation was made public by a press release, its general conclusions
were stated and also the detailed report was available to anyone
interested. It was the custom of his government that such announcements
were sent to the Embassies and Legations in Washington. Mr. Brown said
that he was not aware of any comments or representations made to the State
Department or to the Tariff Commission by any interested government during
the course of the procedure, described above.
He wished to point out the salient fact which emerged from this
investigation. When the concession had been made on hats, an increase in
imports to the United States was of course anticipated. It was not antici-
pated, however, that imports which had previously provided 5 per cent of
domestic consumption would rise to over 30 per cent of domestic consumption,
and that domestic production would show a significant absolute decline.
Neither had certain very unusual changes in the condition of the hat trade
been expected.
Once the United States had concluded that action should be taken
under the escape clause it had proceeded to notify the Contracting Parties
as was its obligation and desire under the General Agreement. The United
States also offered to consult with the Contracting Parties or with any
interested contracting party on the situation arising from this action. No
request had yet been made by the. Czechoslovak for gation for such consultations.
He was prepared to consult with any country at any time to see how the situation
could best be dealt with.
He hoped that this résumé of the procedures which had been
followed in his country would be interest to other countries and that any
other contracting party so situated would approach the problem with equal care.
The latter part of the Czechoslovak paper referred to the rates on
hats in other countries which were substantially lower than these to be in
operation in the United States after 1 December, together with some general
observations on the situation in the United States. He pointed out that
Schedule XX ,contained 1,333 paragraphs, some of which dealt with one, but most
with several items. If the number of items were counted the figure would
reach somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 and the number of individual tariff
rates was greater than that. The purpose of this process of negotiation
that was being carried on was to lower tariffs generally, and Mr. Brown felt
that his government had made a substantial contribution to this effort.
Furthermore, in spite of the several thousand rates and items involved there
had only been to date 20 applications for action under Article XIX, and of those
only one had resulted in action. He felt this placed the matter more in
perspective, at least as far as his own delegation was concerned.
On a point of order, he wished to say that at the end of the
Czechoslovak paper there was a formal proposal that the Contracting Parties
"place on record that the unilateral action of the united States is not in
accordance with the stipulations of Article XIX and recommend that the United
States government revoke its intention in view; of the serious consequences
which its steps may have on the whole Agreement". He hoped that the explanation
he had given would satisfy the Czechoslovak delegate and enable him to withdraw GATT/CP. 5/SR. 14
Page7.
his proposal. If this were unfortunately not the case he would have to
request that the record be cleared and the Contracting Parties vote to
reject the proposal.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that the action taken by the Urited
States also affected Italy and was much regretted since his country had been
making great efforts to increase exports to the United States. An increase
in exports to the dollar area for a country like Italy, dependent to so great
an extent on imports such as wheat and oil from the dollar area, was
imperative. The customs provisions until the present time had permitted a
satisfactory division of work between the industries in the two countries.
Italian industries had conncentrated on high quality goods requiring much
labour, while the United States had devoted itself to cheaper quality for
a large market where manpower was short and expensive. His government, hoped,
however, to obtain a modification in an amicable and satisfactory manner.
He did not pretend to any great competence in interpreting the provisions
of the Agreement, but one of its cardinal principles to his mind was that,
when the economic interests of one contracting, party set it against another,
it was the duty of th: first contracting party to consult and try to reach
a satisfactory solution. Only in the event of the failure of such consul-
tation could arbitrary and one-sided action be taken. The United States
delegation had indicated their readiness to consult, and such consul-
tations should therefore now be undertaken.
M. LECUYER (France) said that France's exports were also
substantially affected by the action of the United States, although less
so that these of Italy and Czechoslovakia. He agreed with Mr. Di Nola's
interpretation of the Agreement, and wished only to add that it was
apparent that the United States had given careful consideration before
undertaking this action, and, that the procedure which had been followed
conformed to Article XIX and opened the way for consultation. He was
awaiting instructions front his government wiich would permit him to undertake
consultations and fully expected to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) agreed that any action,
especially the first of its kind taken under the terms of Article XIX, should
be carefully examined. All countries were concerned with the dangers
inherent in the Article. He was doubtful of the argument made by the
United States representative that the existence of the Article had contri-
buted much to the scope of the concessions granted. The procedure did,
however, provide for consultation with the individual contracting parties
affected, and also with the Contracting Parties as a. whole. In this
instance he thought that the indiviual contracting parties would do well to
take advantage of the offer of consultation. This was not a case at the
present stage for full consultation by the Contracting Parties. He hoped,
however, that any consultation would be directed to the question of what
had been the unforeseen developments in the terms of the Article and whether
they were really unforoseeable, and also to the question of the relationship
of cause and effect between the concession and the increased imports. It
had been useful to hear the full statement of the United States.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) said that the issue was whether the action
of the United Stats was in accorudance with the stipulations of Article XIX,
and whether, if that were found not to the case, the United States should
be asked to revoke its action. This was the first case under Article XIX and
it was right to consider closely the interpretation of the Article. To his
mind, Article XIX, paragraph 1 laid down a rule, and paragraphs 2 and 3 GATT/CP. 5/SR. 14
Page 8.
provided that consultation between individual contracting parties might
take place if one thought that the rule was not being followed. The Contracting
Parties as a whole were not given the oppurtunity to express an opinion until
after such consultations had taken place. In this case consultations had not
taken place and he considered that the proposal was out of order. Article XXIII
was available to a contracting party that considered that a benefit had been nulli-
fied or impaired and under that Article the Contracting Parties were obliged to
consider the case. That Article had not been invoked here. If this interpretation
was correct, then it would not be necessary to consider whether the United States
had acted in accordance with Article XIX.
Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) thanked the United, States representative
for his statement but said that he had come to a number of conclusions with which
he (Mr. Bystricky)could not agree. Mention of the total number of concessions
granted in relation to the one withdrawn was irrelevant since one item for a single
country could mean more than a thousand others. Furthermore, he had never questioned
the fact that the constitutional procedures of the United States had been complied
with. The Tariff Commission was however a United States authority, and the question
was whether to leave one country the task of judging if the conditions of Article
XIX were met or not. The first condition of that Article, that of unforeseen de-
velopments, had not been convincingly argued. Furthermore, in spite of the tariff
reductions at Geneva, the United States duty on this item was still the highest in
the world -55% - and he saw no relationship between the reduction of such a tariff
and increased imports. No proof had been brought either, to the second condition
of causing or threatening serious injury. He therefore maintained the content of
his paper.
He thanked the United States delegate for his offer of consultation,
which he accepted with pleasure. After the consultation had taken place, the matter
could then be brought to the Contracting Parties and he hoped it would be possible
to report that a satisfactory conclusion had been reached.
The CHAIRMAN was glad that the Czechoslovak delelgate agreed to take
advantage of the offer of consultation. This enable the Contracting Parties to
conclude that the best manner of dealing with the case was for consultations to
be carried out between the United States and the countries most concerned, in
accordance with the procedures of Article XIX. The legal position had been
clearly stated by the delegate of Norway.
It was agreed to leave the parties concerned to proceed to a con-
sultation and the Contracting Parties would look forward to hearing the outcome.
The CHlAIRMAN explained that this concluded all the discussions on
the Agenda items possible at this time in plenary session. Plenary meetings
would be adjourned for some time while the working parties got on with their work.
The meeting adjourned at 7. 15 p.m.
.
O"~~~~~~~. |
GATT Library | tg267cs2173 | Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, 13 March 1950 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 17, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 17/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.14 and GATT/CP.4/SR.14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tg267cs2173 | tg267cs2173_90270098.xml | GATT_142 | 3,509 | 22,305 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.4/SR. 14
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 17 March, 1950.
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, 13 March 1950 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada).
Subjects discussed: 1. South African Communication on Import
Restrictions (SECRET/CP/1 and Add.1).
2. Special Exchange Agreements (GATT/CP.3/44
and Add.1, GATT/CP/32, and GATT/CP.4/24).
3. Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate
(GATT/CP.3/61 and GATT/CP.4/23).
The CHAIRMAN welcomed Greece as a new contracting party.
Mr. NAOUM (Greece) thanked the Chairman and stated that his
government looked forward to whole-hearted co-operation with the
contracting parties.
1. South African Communication on Import Restrictions.
(GATT/CP/1 and Add.1).
The CHAIRMAN recalled that this item related to consultations
which had taken place at the Third Session; he referred to
Section VI of the Report of the Working Party (GATT/CP.3/43) re-
lating to consultation with the International Monetary Fund,
wherein the Fund had stated that it was unable to give a final
opinion at the Third Session as it required more detailed infor-
mation. He read a letter from the Executive Secretary to the
Managing Director of the Fund, dated February 1st, inquiring
whether the Fund had come to any conclusions on the questions
covered in Section VI, and the Managing Director's reply of Febru-
ary 20th that any views the Fund might have,would be submitted
by their representatives to the Fourth Session. In these circum-
stances he suggested that the Contracting Parties refer the
question to Working Party E, which was considering balance-of-
payments questions. The Contracting Parties could also note that
the Fund was currently considering the financial aspects of the GATT/CP. 4/SR .14
Page 2.
South African restrictions and that a report would be received
from the Fund on this matter. The Working Party might when it
considered appropriate in view of the Fund's consideration, deal
with the communication from South Africa under the terms of Article
XIV: 1, (g) and other appropriate provisions of the Agreement.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) supported the Chairman's
suggestion that the question be referred to Working Party E and
wished to make a few observations on the import restrictions in
question which might assist the Working Party in their consider-
ation. He did not wish to discuss the purely financial side of
the problem nor to contest that there were not good reasons for
the imposition of these restrictions. He also wished to say
that since Annecy the situation had much improved as South Africa
was no longer making a distinction between sterling and other
soft-currency areas. He would, however, all the attention of the
Contracting Parties to the "prohibited list". South Africa
claimed that these restrictions were imposed in accordance with
the terms of the General Agreement and were non-discriminatory;
the importation of certain goods was prohibited and no arrangements
were made to admit imports under bilateral agreements. The
result had been very unfavourable to Netherlands' exports to
South African He claimed that traditionally the Netherlands
had a favourable trade balance with South Africa in the years before
the war (12.4 million guilders as opposed to 3 million guilders of
imports from South Africa). This balance had begun to alter in
1947-48 (22.8 million guilders exports opposed to 12.7 guilders
imports) and by 1949 the figure for south African exports had
risen to 25.2 million guilders. The same year, however, import
restrictions had cut South African imports from the Netherlands
to 8½ million guilders. It was clear from these figures both that
the Netherlands had given South Africa ample opportunity to earn
Dutch currency and that the lessening of Dutch exports was very
serious indeed. If it were argued that the goods on the pro-
hibited list were only luxuries, nevertheless the production of
luxury goods was a vital and highly skilled industry in many parts
of Europe and an industry which European countries, through bilateral
agreements, had succeeded in allowing to continue. But certain of
the goods on the prohibited list could not be placed in the luxury
class and their prohibition gave the appearance of protection.
Mr. Van Blankenstein suggested that the Working Party, which was now
directing its inquiries into the protective effects of quantitative
restrictions, particularly to countries involved. in bilateral agree. GATT/CP. 4/SR. 14
Page 3.
ments, should also enquire into the effects of complete prohibitions
of certain imports. He did not doubt the good faith or intentions
of the South African government, and realized that attempts were
being made to counteract the protective effect of these restrictions
by controlling investments and supplies of raw materials for new
industries, but he suggested that the results might differ from
the intention. Certainly it could not be denied that an absolute
trade prohibition was more far-reaching and damaging in effect than
a quantitative restriction, which at least permitted some imports
of the restricted products.
Mr. BOTHA (South Africa) suggested that this might be discussed
in the Working Party.
Upon Mr. Van Blankenstein's agreement to this proposal, the
Chairman read the additional terms of reference for Working Party
E to cover consideration of the communication from South Africa.
This was agreed.
2. Special Exchange Agreements (GATT/CP.3/44 and Add.1,GATT/CP/32,
and GATT/CP.4/24).
The CHAIRMAN called the attention of the Contracting Parties
to the letters between the International Monetary Fund and the
Executive Secretary contained in document GATT/CP/52 and also to
the acceptance by Ceylon of a special exchange agreement (document
GATT/CP/53). He gave a résumé of the general situation relating
to exchange agreements. A resolution adopted at the Third Session,
requiring contracting parties not members of the International
Monetary Fund to enter into special exchange agreements, related
particularly to Burma, Ceylon and Pakistan; agreements for those
three countries had been prepared in January, signed by the Chairman
of the Contracting Parties and deposited with the Secretary General
of the United Nations. Ceylon had deposited an instrument of
acceptance on 3rd March and the agreement would enter into force
on 2 April; Ceylon had also notified the Contracting Parties that
it intended to avail itself of the transitional arrangements of
Article XI of the Agreement for the maintenance of restrictions on
payments and transfers for current international transactions.
There remained certain other matters which would have to be dis-
cussed with the Government of Ceylon and with the Fund, namely the
determination of a par value for the Ceylon currency, margins for
transactions in gold and foreign exchange, the furnishing of infor-
mation, etc. GATT/CP. 4/SR.14
Page 4.
Burma had advised that, since it expected to join the Inter-
national Monetary Fund in the near future, it would request the
Contracting Parties to allow until the next session its acceptance
of the special exchange agreement. Pakistan also expected to join
the Fund in the near future and consequently felt it unnecessary
to accept the agreement. At the Third Session the Contracting
Parties had also, by resolution, extended the time limit for New
Zealand's acceptance of an agreement, and it was expected that any
New Zealand proposals to meet its special difficulties would be
considered at this session and the date for its acceptance would
be fixed.
Furthermore, three Annecy acceding governments - Haiti,
Liberia and Sweden - were not members of the Fund and a Third
Session resolution required that such governments should accept
agreements within four months of becoming contracting parties.
Haiti and Liberia expected to become members of the Fund by the
end of the current month, but, in the case of Liberia, it would not
be necessary for it to accept a special exchange agreement in any
case since, by a resolution of the Third Session, a contracting
party using solely the currency of another country was exempted
from this requirement so long as neither of the two countries
maintained exchange restrictions. Finally, it had been agreed
at the Third Session that the Contracting Parties at this session
should consider the procedure and arrangements that would be
necessary to implement the provisions of special exchange agreements.
In this connection, the Chairman referred to document GATT/CP.4/24
circulated by the United States delegation.
Mr. KOELMYER (Ceylon) explained that his government had
accepted the special exchange agreements since there was no prospect
of its becoming a member of the Fund before 23rd February. He
suggested that the U.S. proposals on procedures be referred to a
Working Party for discussion.
U. MYA SEIN (Burma) thanked the Chairman for his explanation
of the Burmese case.
Mr. DJIEMHANA (Indonesia) explained that Indonesia was con-
sidering the question of becoming a member of the Fund and assured
the Contracting Parties that if Indonesia did not become a member
a special exchange agreement would be entered into within the time
prescribed. GATT/CP. 4/SR.14
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) explained that Pakistan had been making
continuous
/ efforts to join the Fund and had expected to become a member before
23 February when a special exchange agreement would no longer have
been necessary. The Governors of the Fund had agreed to the
membership of Pakistan but too late to get Parliament's approval
before 23 February. It seemed, however, better, since Pakistan
would become a member of the Fund very shortly not to enter into
a special exchange agreement, both because it would complicate
matters in Parliament and it would raise issues for the Contracting
Parties which would be taken up by the Fund in any case.
The CHAIRMAN said that it seemed clear that it would be necess-
ary to set up a Working Party but he wondered whether it would not
be possible for the Contracting Parties to decide at this meeting
on the case of Pakistan, since Mr. Hasnie was expecting to leave
Geneva in the near future.
Mr. EVANS (United States) had no objection, but enquired
whether a definite date might be set for the extension of the time
limit for Pakistan.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) replied that it was unlikely to take more
than four months and explained that the Fund was satisfied that
matters were proceeding as rapidly as possible.
The CHAIRMAN suggested setting the date of September 30, which
was the date set by the Fund for the possible extension of the time
limit to Haiti.
This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN explained that this decision would be given
formal effect in a resolution.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) thanked the Fund for the advice con-
tained in its letter of 3 March (document GATT/CP/52). With
regard to New Zealand's special position, he explained that there
were further difficulties since the new government had not had
sufficient time to study the question. He had instructions not
to propose amendments to the text of the special exchange agreement
at this Session, but he would like an opportunity to discuss in the
Working Party a time limit for the entry of New Zealand into a
special exchange agreement.
Finally, on the question of procedure, he thanked the United
States delegation for producing so detailed a paper and considered
it would be of great assistance to the Working Party. He supported GATT/CP. 4/SR. 14
Page 6.
the suggestion that the question should be referred to a Working
Party since it was a highly technical one and of concern to few
of the contracting parties. A working party would also he
assisted by the consideration during the Annecy meeting of the
question of inter-sessional procedures. This whole question
seemed to him an example of the difficulty of taking a text from the
Havana Charter and trying to apply it under the General Agreement.
Mr. JONSSON (Sweden) explained that Sweden was now considering
applying for membership in the Fund and was aware of the require-
ments concerning a special exchange agreement in the event that it
did not become a member of the Fund. He said he would welcome an
opportunity to discuss this with the Working Party.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) agreed.with the New Zealand delegate
that the document circulated by the United States delegation would
be very useful as a basis for discussion. 'Australia considered
it both very important and also a question of principle that
limits should be clearly set within which contracting parties
were required to accept decisions of the Fund. He felt that this
paper went further in certain points than Article XV itself and
required careful consideration.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) hoped that the Working Party would con-
sider whether it was necessary or desirable to codify so detailed
a set of regulations at this stage. It appeared that almost
every government needing a special exchange agreement was con-
templating joining the Fund and since the future organization of
the Contracting Parties was not known, it might be preferable to
wait.
Mr. EVANS (United States) agreed that this paper required
careful examination and said that the United States would be glad
to have the Australian and Canadian points raised in the Working
Party. His delegation would also be glad to see the length and com-
plexity of the rules reduced. The United States had felt, however,
and he thought it had also been the opinion of the Working Party
in Annecy, that it was necessary to codify the rules of procedure
in this case even if all the contracting parties should become mem-
bers of the Fund. There remained the problem of future acceding
governments who should know at the time of accession precisely
what was involved.
The CHAIRMAN suggested terms of reference for a Working Party
on Special Exchange Agreements to cover all the questions raised
in the discussion, and membership based on the membership of the
Working Party at the previous session and during the inter-sessional
period. The only change was the substitution of Indonesia for
Pakistan, since the delegate of Pakistan was leaving Geneva.
Mr. Steyn was named as Chairman in his personal capacity, and
Belgium, Burma, Ceylon, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, United
Kingdom and United States were appointed as members. GATT/CP. 4/SR. 14
Page 7.
3. Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate (GATT/CP.3/61 and
GATT/CP. 4/23)
The CHAIRMAN explained that no action had been taken on
this question at the Third Session as Chile had requested time
to negotiate directly with Australia, but had also requested
that it be kept on the Agenda for the Fourth Session.
Mr. ALFONSO (Chile) thought that sufficient details were
contained in the paper which had been circulated. He did wish
to point out, however, that this was a question of principle
rather than of the amount involved, since the imports by
Australia of Chilean nitrate were relatively small. He also
wished to emphasize that his government was not asking for
the payment of a subsidy to Chilean nitrate but only that it
be given equality of treatment with a like product. The
subsidy on ammonium sulphate made it impossible for sodium
nitrate to compete freely in the market. He considered that
this involved the basic principles of the Agreement. He was
anxious to hear the Australian explanation since in the last
conversation between the two governments the Australian
delegation had agreed to recommend the reinstitution of a
subsidy on sodium nitrate.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) complimented the Chilean delegation
on its clear declaration and said that, except for paragraph
12(b), which he could not accept at all, the situation was
set out very fairly from Chile's viewpoint. However, the
facts were more complicated than appeared from the Chilean
statement and he felt it necessary to supplement that state-
ment at several points.
Firstly, he explained that the subsidy on sodium nitrate
had been instituted in 1943 as part of the organization of
the country's economy for war, and the resulting price stabili-
zation and control of production of certain primary products.
Before the war, sodium nitrate and ammonium sulphate had been
sold commercially at the same price. In the course of the
policy of price stabilization, existing price relations were
frozen and the government proceeded to subsidize imports of
goods which were considered essential and whose landed cost
was rising. Accordingly, the subsidy varied from time to time
and from product to product. In the case of nitrogenous
fertilizers, it was decided, upon the outbreak of war, to set
up a pool of all such fertilizers and to procure them wherever
possible, depending upon shipping and availability. This pool GATT/CP. 4/SR. 14
Page 8.
would distribute the fertilizer to producers at a fixed price
of £16.10. -. a ton. No subsidy was required in the first
year of the pool since no losses were incurred, but when it
became apparent that the pool was losing by adhering to the
fixed price, the losses were met by the government. This
was the subsidy referred to. No direct subsidy was paid
on the importation of either commodity, and the total subsidy
to the pool could only be attributed to that product by
calculating the quantities used and the prices at which they
were produced or imported. Like all other subsidy arrangements
it had to come under review after the war and it was in the
course of this review that the Government, in July 1949,
decided to discontinue the inclusion of sodium nitrate in the
pool arrangement. The arrangement was continued with regard
to ammonium sulphate, both local and imported. Such a pool
had existed on a commercial basis before the war and the
original war time arrangement was rather one of extending the
pool to cover sodium nitrate than the application of a subsidy
to both products. A subsidy was continued to cover losses
made by the ammonium sulphate pool (despite an increase in
price) because this type of fertilizer was used by producers
of commodities still selling under a fixed maximum price such
as sugar, whereas sodium nitrate was used chiefly for products
not subject to price control and it was consequently felt that
those producers could bear the variations in the price of the
latter product. He explained, in this connection, that sodium
nitrate and ammonium sulphate had somewhat different properties
and that the former was needed mainly for acid soils, but,
because of its moisture absorbent qualities, was unsuitable
to the sugar growing areas although the soil there was acid.
During the war, when supplies of nitrogenous fertiliser were
distributed by the government, Australian farmers were glad
to get what they could, even if the type of fertiliser was
not what they preferred. Those conditions no longer existed
and farmers own preferences were now effective again.
Mr. WALKER said that, while the statement in paragraph 4
was correct, Australia had never contemplated that the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade wouId require that a subsidy
introduced during the war for purposes of price stabilization
be retained indefinitely. The process of decontrol went on at
a varying pace for different commodities, Australia had en-
tered into negotiations with Chile on the question of the
subsidy, but he felt that paragraph 9 of the Chilean document GATT/CP. 4/SR. 14
Page 9.
gave an impression that the Australian negotiators were con-
vinced of the strength of the Chilean case. He explained
that the Australian negotiators had advised their government
that, while they could not agree that there was a case under
the General Agreement, in view of the importance that Chile
attached to the question, they suggested that the government
might agree to pay a subsidy on sodium nitrate. The
Australian government had considered this proposal and as a
friendly gesture had suggested that an out-right subsidy be
granted, based on the nitrogenous content of the nitrate.
This offer was rejected and in the circumstances Australia
agreed to take the question of principle before the Contracting
Parties and withdrew its previous offer. His delegation would
be glad to explore the situation as fully as possible in order
to reach some sort of solution.
Mr. A.LFONSO (Chile) referred to paragraph 9 and said
that while he could not speak for the exact communication from
the Australian delegation to its goverment, the Australian
delegate had stated that he would have opposed the withdrawal
of the subsidy and, while not agreeing that the Agreement
had been violated, would recommend its reinstitution if the
question could then be removed from the Agenda.
Mr. ALFONSO felt that Mr. WALKER'S statement made the
Australian position no more tenable, He did not wish to enter
into the very technical questions of the difference between
the two products, but would point out that Chilean nitrate
was a whole product used for agriculture everywhere and
nowhere considered as non-competitive with ammonium sulphate.
In the United States nitrate of sulphate was used in very large
quantities and in the United Kingdom and Sweden it received a
higher subsidy than ammonium sulphate. Perhaps the Contracting
Parties would Wish to consult, under the terms of Article
XXIII, with any appropriate intergovernmental organisations
on the technical qualities of the two products. He felt that
it was most important for the Contracting Parties to decide
whether the fundamental principles of the Agreement were being
respected in this matter.
The CHAIRMAN said that the discussion would be continued
at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | rk994ks8929 | Summary Record of the Fourth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.4/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rk994ks8929 | rk994ks8929_90270120.xml | GATT_142 | 542 | 3,714 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.5/SR. 4/Corr.1
13 November 1950
BILINGUAL
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 4
Mr. SCHMITT's (New Zealand) remarks should road as follows:-
Mr. Schmitt (New Zealand) thought that perhaps the difficulty with
this item arose from the use in the title of the word "review" which had
a specific meaning in Article XII:4(b) regarding, import restrictions.
In the Working Party report the actual question was whether individual
contracting parties should be asked to prepare material on export
restrictions and whether the Secretariat, should be given some task
relating to the coordination of any such material so that it might be
presented in a systematic and comprehensive manner, or whether priority
should. be given to some other enquiry. Some slight additional information
in another field of commercial policy might complete the picture for the
Contracting Parties: Much material on import restrictions, introduced
for balance of payments reasons or within the terms of Article XVIII, was
already available and more would be forthcoming after the approval of the
questionnaire at this session. There were other articles in the
Agreement under which import restrictions could be imposed and if there
were enough time for governments and the Secretariat to provide and
collate such material, it might also be collected. Insofar as export
restrictions were concerned, his country was mainly interested in these
which particularly affected its own trade and theu would collect, full
details of those in any case.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Cinquième Session
COMPTE RENDU DE LA QUATRIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum
Le déclaration doe.Mr. SCHMIDT (Nouvelle-Zélande) doit être, libellée0
comem suit:
.M SHMICTT (Nouvelle-éZanlde) se dmaened si la difficuléUq ue souèlve ec
point en provient pas ed 'emlploi, dans 'élnonecd u point de 'lodrer du jour,
du mot e"xaemn", elquel a uen signification boni pércies dans 'larticel XII.4(b)
relatif aux restrictionsà l'imporattion. La évritable qesution poése dans le
rapport du Groupe ed travai éltait ed savoir si chacune esd parties contractan-
ets devraitê ter inviét àè rasesmbler dse donénes our els restrictionsà e x-
porattion et si le ecSértariat edvraitê ter chareg dc coordonner ces informa-
tions de manèire qu'elles puisenstê trep érsenétes d'une fç on rationnelle,
dans un tableau 'ednsemble, ou si l'on edvraitdon er la pnrioriét à une auter
enqêute. Quelques informations suppémelntaies/unr atuer aspect ed la politique
cmmeorciael pourraient cmopéletr el tableau qui esarit somuisa ux Parties
ontract.ntes. Doesdonné&s substancieuleu sur leu restrictions àal'importa-
tion imposées en cas de difficultés dans la balance des paiements ou sur celles
qui relèvent de l'article XVIII ont déjà été recueillies et d'autres par-
viondront lorsque le questionnaire aura été approuvé à la présente session. GATT /CP.5/SR.4/Corr. 1
page 2
D ' autres articles de l ' Accord autorisent le rececurs aux restrictions
à l ' importation et, au cas ou les gouvernments et l- Secrétariat dispo-
seraient d ' un tempe suffisant pour fournir et rassembIer les donnéecs éi;-
c si.es. des ren, gr_:i ts pouraier ta s: i être recucillis à cet égard..1 ; =5
ui concerne son pays, la Nouvelle-Zélande s ' intéresse surtout aun;1sClU
rq c uncerne sonipays, la Nouvella-Zélande csf -n ére se'ihtxou uarxct u t
a délegation nceasaemblera toous les reseignements déssscsles su bcce.r C-;
'il. |
GATT Library | ns319vh9147 | Summary Record of the Fourth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay on Saturday, 4 November,1950, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 7, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.4 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ns319vh9147 | ns319vh9147_90270119.xml | GATT_142 | 2,370 | 14,795 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.5/SR.4
TARIFFS AND TRADE 7 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay
on Saturday, 4 November,1950, at 10.30 am.
Chairman: The Hon. L. Dana Wilgress (Canada)
Subjects
discussed 1. Budget and Administrative Arrangements
for 1951 (GATT/CP.5/10 and 13, (contd.),
and GATT/CP. 5/19)
2. Consideration of a Review of Quantitative
Export Restrictions (GATT/CP. 5/3)
1. Budget and Administrative Arrangements for 1951 (GATT/CP 5/10 and 13 )
(continuation of discussion)
The CHAIRMAN ref erred to the proposal of the Czechoslovak delegation
regarding the scale of contributions (GATT/CP.5/19) which had just been
distributed and said that yesterday's discussion on the two secretariat
papers on the budget (GATT/CP. 5/10 and 13) would be continued.
Mr. FLALA (Czechoslovakia) explained that his delegation had tried to
evolve a system of contributions that would be more equitable than the present
system and had taken as a basis for calculation th export trade of each
country with contracting parties rather than its total volume of foreign trade.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada), while agreeing that the problem of contributions was
always difficult, nevertheless felt that it would be better to avoid any fixed
rules as long as the situation of the Contracting Parties remained unsettled.
The original formula, had been found generally workable and had been modified
from time to time to meet different conditions. He thought that the Working
Party should base itself on the original formula and, although now proposals
should be given full consideration, bear in mind that the time was perhaps not
suitable for such a changes.
Mr. ALLAS (Philippines) asked if hi s delegation might submit a new plan
of contributions to the Working Party.
It was agreed that the Philippine Delegation should be invited to appear.
before the Working Party with its new plan for consideration.
Mr. BROWN (United States) agreed with the Canadian delegate that the
Working Party should examine all proposals thoroughly but should approach
its task with the idea that the burden of proof rested on those who proposed
changes to the present system. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 4
Page 2
M r. SCHMITT (New Zealand) thought it unprofitable to discuss formulae
f or contributions in the abstract. In practice the existing scale seemed
fair enough and. in theory a case could be made for any basis of calculation.
M. ROYER (Secretariat) pointed out that one of the features of the new
Czechoslovak proposal was the fixing of a basic contribution he felt that
the amount of $200 suggested would represent more or less the cost of one
set of documents produced in a year by the Secretariat. As the minimumn
ervlces r~nde-ed . y' tec eccertariat toa delegration shoudi be more
wxensSve' tha .han t.hepoociiiosno o one copy of f th doecuenots issud-, itw\oudJ
ppear d-esirale toappDrilse arecfulyl teh maount fo the basic onctriu.iton.
nvoteoracteJrnatie wou'dI be to issue teodrocmenlts on a subscription basis
Isw'asdo:ne for the AnnecyC cheducle, a d Lot apl1y a scaleo f olntilbutions
to theo1ter xpenditu
lrM .II... (Czechoslovakia) a:rcg.eedat the bnscefi,uge of %20$ was
?ephap 1ol an. dhat the .o i;k'ngPbr tyul: donsiced an a.jdstment.
The CM THAIRMANrp.spo'ed . kin, 2grPy -t>withrms of reference as
follr::o
.)oTCi ionsidthe bubetdgCset::imates-r o951 anK odner financial
Oocu.'Cmentsbm#J1itted th J'eec-tivi e^crearey nt<a Lo take
ap.popri. aa reCo^cenl~sdatiotos~ tC~t onra.'2ing Part''
"T- reco-mmnd a scal e o f contri bitios for consi.ceatino bl the
Contr~atirng Pati.e.
anKd a mcembershi of Oan.ad, 'z ehoslcooaia, Torminica PRebpulic Inconesi,a,
Republic) as Chairman r. stor (;omimican
.his was agreed.
Xherr. Aetil ond(;?ucsta:)ermquirc7.tzi ho sec, I the tCi.s of
g Party?,'nad ! tommend permanentYr coulo recC orra a1 -:Crm nr scale Of
c..r. ,;ril;:' . . . 0~~~f.. vc2
Tho | give to lai? n tI1t 7t tes necessary to he Worki g Party
I l:ip t ien i'ts rcoar.:i ti. ana e.tholh the itmediae Droblm was a
otcde frabl51 , the imrkdi~iv Da~t;; r¢U oconsider i` .esirr .e to recom nn
the contination of an. sbal f.'r 2.c 1 e iod.
eThe Jhairman 'ts..)sko'l 'i l tions to i:dicet to the Secretariat as
soono ts ossiblc w.'~irh-, i . t) rer;:i.i the cn,,ibutions vvich were
outsta !.7. and aIo whiont1c,, e9c cteJi t remit their contributJios for 1Q51.
2,ExpConsRectation of a >e-ic; of :uantitave Pzzort 7cs-rictions
( -r~~~~t53) ..... A . ._ ___
C,
The Ci~i','.I suanr iscf the note'C 'hC 'X'c''v Secre ry ,n1. ..kd n
dheoCo1uItoe to COlS~ er W hr th Secretariat lh1ul be iinstute! t l
requ st inforvation on ;ort.- - sric i o fe C.ymtratin:'. pties and
:rctaro a statcnent on tho aplApcation o. sucl rcstrictions. GATT/CP.5/SP.4
Page 3
the Fourth Session(GATT/CP.4/33) and its proposal that the Contracting
Parties should embark on a detailed review of any restrictions other than
this work and any such determination had been left to the Contracting Parties.
The Australian Government could not support any review of ~f'
rt-orstrictioirncomparable to the review of import restric
tiCons which were already being carried out. The Australia
~Delegtion at th:e last session had opposed the inclusionof th i
it em in the terms of reference of the WorkingParty and its continu
0"oppositionas sbased n 1 the opinion that the General Agreemen
cor.-m, inte thplate o rian.nd~of treatment for export restriction
had beanl Ometkni .e- undertaken in respect of export restr
cocatno'l n &,rticKK X~ntained r an A~.~rle CI:S~ ( ) rega i ding
in accor'>ne-. ith thE~ rocceuro, J12 da.ce qw: I, e pbilaedrale
*iscus 3J0V in v cor cio nidhLY tsionsf .-d' Cacance'in thevmn' Aricle o
ftilua~x recourse to '0O cr f0 rxt 1iac 17re, e.0Ji..o L01cr,the ter
no ~urthor discusin'3 himLr
Y.C-TERF',' (Cuba) d i C, _tC Is- )lc' LuTi -:zn* Mr. CUERRA who~io r or
no actiO. should bC tken on ar~ -c'r .. . . A .vc tcxportonetr.io a
but hc did ;Sh i notc Wer io y >c-usnlia Je't f,~ er j.t
o2~ositioa. T ac-rod ht ;re, wa o>ol n'roviclC_ intc >rpp. t
dealin: vi! suc C' triI>: L but >icu~s A'I adXITI mJ.t(xlr0:
wall a im-ort rostri.-ions Cn no1ini':--vthr:oeiil~di ~c
notral c stca-t nt.t (.
~Jceo'v~a 220 j7)r'O\TJZ?.f o"t 1 .sr -1ii r ]i. u r artC
J.. iou- nO ro vete -1ir t 1i c- - rny S C 112 n LU Ior
1-;Counrf jiez wor F.-ut -I into u. r at cr` 1-_ d~v Lo rg oho:'- i ¼an
inkoJn io astui-o 'n 1 - %rc rr C a '-icr?.t
i s 0 111 an7 o .ocrat'iori cG 1 c ~ .~. t
neessary iufHon -(rrCre i.n, 'C' ck -Pt :c;t -nm D. kn-e' th1 at i h
present oi~~~~rcumtn ,th1m.hth areIt Uce Ir 'stit-n~ hc
cont!rn-.ijvs viAreru now tx~eig nan-c-J ene-:o-or lf rhov. 0J mthti --
r.us iiaiotnte21 teCnt:"ta',atc t :GKeat0 tC.1 -12i t5 awl
enur that any2-, mc!for tho nCorasa'-r:7 cndoJwihchest:i b
undertjsakn.o in such. a ma o--inner asntt rsrliolicin--enlesrov sd and.c
be kept ura..-en'"r constAntscutJ theefoe syro7c the C C op-,saJn.t.
Th aur oJteif aitoat c -nt idcudb okdo naWri
-~l-n(~ ,,(C h agreeing to this item arose from the use in the title of the word "review"rX oriv ,H
a specific meaning in Article XII:4(b) regarding import 's'f)o_-I {, e<^^ci, r.alt
report the actual question was,!o - >< trL ; n: rv.. >ctivol qon W.n AS.
hould be asked to prepare material O's-. U' 511 c,; tU;-ot 2j. rc-,,;a2: -'-nria~
Secretariatuld e given some task So t.. . '?wi 2 .; r.-5 ? b~tt it pi4x e
~ >, =1 -;r r) h c c o~; i> nRj r t ,4l tr S:ilcW be?¢dvin
tr. Cf; n .t n81>',{ ,i.'5)-llw,'.¢'vntal;i1 -t@_-~'Ctvd~ lU.itr.D
' <t t- '; v ' * s e*" t t'''4li vw * . ?s.' J -ll -.-r v Ion , lL 't
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J_ t,, , thE.... :, .Ai:vD t;l .b lC.
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A v._ZIv. ,.4r* nre r ti;z il u r.I1e
.1.> i': ; ;)+ 'D' 'tr .;. . 1 r ,;t l r lzsWtE- i~i 6.i~.?.5. Sticl.l
. f r ...... , f . ~~~~~~~~~~~rr , . .... ci .;.,I ,, c- 1 ,..D0' 1C;*_tnn
c;.^,(~~~~~~~~~~~~C Ile
C.i .o!' ' 'rI;;'- r D, E - j j 4 i ; -Cl , .t.J ~ ~.1er#.CC
i ! ' V . >, , = i r , ,j, . t1 C . 1.1. 1 ' 5 i . 5 ; . o / C r t r * 1 i . .-
s s 7;r I' l fl'q''' DK, - ull- d.t''. i:-, be' m1ll.r:~
.i- ', 4 lr .. t> .',a w^:qtd~qclW.s lti s sl lt
in f, C 1 _ Kn , . t) S t r A s ' fi 1 roz ,C _ n.S i. ' CiS)*i <1 iD OU . ! 1 d rir { h 13O s s i e i 1 in; a ,n
*.siL'. _,1 rXC tQ ; .'lfSle. '. ll : , ;.-; v''z ; ,' . r-I. s~. t udo. ti, rino si, t-,,v
J . ^ O\; #.. - ;.n , t,7) .. 1 L' i r! -I!" ' C: S - lf 1RJ e h 57¢ I
'"'.-.'"j|ir'''l iiQ r:L C re -.:3 O; '1''. ]'';,b U i:..-' o' bc > tl, II ~ r 'r\''
t w~wi! S~er t~w~ritl .; ,ilc l, r tb r ,7a:, 'C,,, i. , t. 3/~lfj. 1., 'L o~... s.,4- cNN- r -o s
s \n;' h :.4.'.+..?.ri.-- o" i!.. cti.. C'''S''.'r . !f .wf S "Is, t T..3 t ?;i lt ,n l ,"J.?i , o t,
: ^ . f C t ;.' .rn. . SO 7.t 1 r: . .lo *:# to.R, .} q1,1 ; i vv .~~~~tI-'o 1. o r sou cos
* v n ..' ( T * '; 4 * # t t * ) ' - 1 § ........................,j . .! ' 1 4 't' . t;'J t; ,* r {, { 1 '' C X
oesw~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~r- -in.cr\I'f ,'ts1@. {l' GATT/CP. 5/SR. 4
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) considered that the question was
whether or not it was necessary to have a more detailed collection of
information than that already available from the ordinary sources of government
journaIs and commercial offices in the various countries, and the Trade News
Bulletin. Certain kinds of information were required to be published under
Article X and some was provided. His delegation would not oppose any
decision on a fuller or more orderly compilation of information in the field
of export restrictions, but thought should be given as to whether it was
needed immediately or whether this item could be put forward to the following.
session. -.
dIhow it was posaiblent eclof i* ting PalLcesor C ntrac -rti 0
tp exercisrictiono estaver imPoft restan^. . s:-mblished ror bal.ce of payrents
or other reasonformatnlesz they also shad i n ion on export retrictiocs
Whsam copulpd e. useItf' the z-ft uros. ey wt necesCsary to surv:r- 'he
entire sHstever, the restrlctiomns. lowt ' 1ionsudy of iport rescrictx..oS
nwas!a dot yc. erd beasa .v.aed. it htu't t e*p.idl therefore, ;ha cc n1rbjemW
of ewxortgeeotrice ags -Mswloss urrceteg Hec- reed vith the dclEratc of Now
Zoalen8, buet, woulofnot oppose any gcPai-n :? the Contractin, ?trties that such
n^invc:tiretioowshould be gncermentow n-') dyd.his .-vonanonNrs rea.r to pro-
.vide all the information
Mr.dIviPL-i. (thewayroposal was sound in rropose1 r--l sou .sn principle
and ihat whit sas lhe king e dinfusmation to be obtained'or!m*s t- ,: 0 0b2iLd
in Whethirght instan e. -e enou- g thwtsttoe deyprlei:visa,ed ;az ½o Jtaicd
at this stagl for evxorp restrictigns and pronosed that reneral memoranda only
bemrequestTd from roarintents. Lhee meke t..compaould ehn ra':- a 0± .rrativcly
short anw simmpgh survey as to -haa iLte bdate anded at o la'tr c.:2.:. the
Six-hwhession coulmd dectida diwhawas omormediae :n' .10t of oroe academic
interest.
Mr. h (Cuba)tassociaeeeg1tes wh wiad fel dcha a -.cto hdf. c]t ti,t
t e. Secrcta i:t shouplicandentakIt oue comoie.otiol. u w ld be useful to
obtain ewco infortiming ipeviCe Cf the coges. rcriod of shorta,:c and the
uurvep woule hcln ic sLt im-ort ghr.ptrsct onv. in the rit cerzpectie.
'he C Tthere wasd that whilfi" p:(vo ' no specit.c -ro ision in thE
. r~cCCtwe rcuairitaPFve-revi-iof. n'nti'expi.es srm.taoi on Coortz s ini,.r
tm 1rt rcqpa c.ifosr it was neo r.reser ct-"n: hacveitholo clear t :;
tprevenas no,;.'¶ to ing-Pzttiee Contractlle ?ang 1 sformasconJ.Jctitlv inY'Orntio
on. The^:)D oestirns tsr.cwas w e qeotto p e 1 ow;thcr ;o nrocedr nle with the
collect ion~. El ohisreinfocmatnsn sxprt rcstriCtioC) had been considered at
a Working Pay y hirh-h 1, Ldt'wach ryacdfunuo th-.t i could'. n p-ioedl
V oV faof n th.canfenme io' moreeia'orratponnted hctrecoea noi-o, ou; -l)Urly
tht tie qecstes.n rshoufd bo conideet of viewhe poin p tl° t of'-riori y.
ng Pa ienlagIe C ct pt ls plerood istrucnctl' t,cinta rUCt 'he SeCretriat
tofcmatiot the Exeror:ne-,et'eiary cutivd Se rtre.A coprepareb. askcd to orcr
the light i. today's*; of 'cn 'e is hessioC , onype tlf( xact t oi
ibforw-tion to 1e collectdd. Tonsideou.1 beac. are:red eeat gsr lt-r mti.
ia).agree (Indrp' nc;rced in ±riuiplc on the fsefupnessiof a com,ilat.on
of, th-e kin.dbutglie. theheelecttc Kf gdomUni edghtn, :l, thou! L there was
no neee to :.ed to thop e eatraal aa lrscnt cvail. bebJe. It would difficult
fmentis 'vernlv::a to answerr aney fur ao esu,.tionn,-rdS, and it d.l.not seem
to him th' t a gen emo anlcmeral muggedur, bs SUe,de agted ly th le ate of Norway, would
adwaecgethf kne-lcdr-aot ng conti-c iJ2- psrtles.in thiS matter. GATT/CP.5 /SR .4
Page 6~~~~~i prnil h b
It was aW!eed by a vote of 13 to 5 to adopt in principle the Note by
the Executive teWretary. Partioulars'o' the types of information would be
supplied at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. SCJTITT (Ne, Zealand) raised a Point of order concerning the
proposal he had made for obtaining aditional information on import
restrictions He enquired whether this point should be raised under Item 7
of the Agenda.
The CH wJB0A stated that the question under discussion Was export
recomeictions, and the New Zealand proposal would Aed more appropriately
under Item 7, as an extension of the enquiry now contemplated.
The meetin, adjourned at 1.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | nh036tn2231 | Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay on Friday, 8 December, 1950, at 4 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 12, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 12/12/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP. 5/SR/19 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nh036tn2231 | nh036tn2231_90270147.xml | GATT_142 | 2,327 | 15,054 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP. 5/SR/19
12 December 1950 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, r:-=;r on
Friday, 8 December, 1950, at 4 p.m.
Chairman: M. André PHILlP (France )
Subjects discussed: 1. Arrangement for future cocsultation with the
International Monetary Fund in connection with
consultations under Article XII. (GATT/CP. 5/38)
2. Closing date of the Fifth Session. (GATT/CP.5/34)
1. Arrangements for future consultation with the International Monetary
Fund in connection with consultations under Article XII. (GATT/CP.5/38)
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) expressed satisfaction with the successful
conclusion of the full and frank consultations under Article XII which had
been carried out in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation. There were,
however, some misgivings on the part of certain representatives, including
himself, which had arisen from a division of 2 L as to the basis on which
the Contracting Parties were to consult with the International Monetary Fund,
and from the absence of a full understanding between the Fund and the Con-
tracting Parties at certain stages of the consultation. It was most important
for the future of the General Agreement, . :e' i i international collaboration
generally, that the possibility of misunderstanding between the two institutions
should be minimised. The respective juri:L-r':, ; of the two institutions were
naturally not mutually exclusive, and the procedure for co-operative consultation
and mutual assistance should, therefore, be developed. It was hoped that the
Contracting Parties, in due course, would be able to make contributions to the
Fund on trade matters comparable to that which the Fund had been able to make in
the financial field, and it would be reasonable to export resiprocity in this
regard, even though the Fund constitution contained no provision corresponding
to Article XV of the General Agreement. ln the absence of a definition of the
manner in which co-operation between the.;: and the Contracting Parties should
be carried out in practice, the relationship ' '( be worked out on a reasonable
and commonsense basis. It was essential that the terms of invitation to the
Fund to consult should be carefully worded so as to avoid any possible
misunderstanding on the nature and scope of the information and advice to be
sought from the Fund. To avoid any possible t C . rli:'ra.'mcrzt, such terms should
in future be determined by the Contracting L ;d>racti.-. Whilst it was quite
proper for the Fund, as an cJ-pcr+. body in the field of monetary reserves,
balance of payments and foreign exchange arrangements, to make definitive
findings of statistical facts, to i-' " ' " its analysis of the
facts and to express its views fully, it :i .¶ a, -o possible future
misunderstanding if the broad manner in which c;. -j:information would be re-
quested were agreed upon in advance. Any or views which the Fund
should feel inclined to express or matters ' within its field as pro-
vided for in Article XV would be ' c-: rc I informally through
the Fund representative at such c. -. . ' . *. . .; *a. -* - the provisions of
Article XII:4(e) regarding the .) - - cute of GATT/CP. 5/SR. 19
Page 2
matters to be or being considered and of maintaining the utmost secrecy,
applied to consultations under Article XII. An assurance of adequate-
secrecy and a clear indication of the precise nature of a consultation
would both be conducive to the successful implementation of these provisions
of the Agreement; the objectives of this section of the Agreement would be
defeated if dangerous precedents in these aspects were allowed to be estab-
lished at this Session. Mr. TONKIN then proposed that those aspects of
Article XII on consultations be considered by the Contracting Parties at
their next session with a view to clarifying the procedures of consultation
with the Fund and that the Contracting Parties give immediate consideration to
the proposal that the precise terms of invitation to the Fund to consult be
approved in advance by the Contracting Parties. The former proposal was
made in the belief that contracting parties would wish to have an opportunity
between now and the Sixth Session to consider the appropriate basis for the
full part which the Fund might play in such consultations.
In conclusion, Mr. TONKIN expressed theebelief that the Contracting
Parties were capable of evolving, on a reasonable and commonsense basis,
arrangements for consulting fully with the Fund which would leave no ground
for doubt as regards the full sovereignty of the Contracting Parties in
trade matters and which would at the same time ensure that the most useful
and essential part to be played by the Fund in such consultations was
clearly laid down.
M.CASSIERS (Belgium) pointed out that the primary purpose of the
consultations under Article XII was to find out whether quantitative
restrictions were maintained for the purposes specified in that Article,
i.e., whether they were necessary to forestall the imminent threat of, or
stop, a serious decline in the monetary reserves of the contracting party,
or, in the case of the contracting party with very low monetary reserves, to
achieve a reasonable rate of increase in its reserves. This being so, the
Fund, when consulted, would naturally be expected to express its views on the
impact which a relaxation of quantitative restrictionsn would have on the
monetary reserves of the contracting party. The Australian proposal was in
effect tantamount to a revision of paragraph 2 of Article XV, the provisions
of which implied that the Fund should supply the Contracting Parties with all
its findings on financial matters. It would be regretted if the Fund would
not do so in the future but limit itself to providing undigested bulk of
statistics.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) pointed out that the proposals put forward by his
delegation referred to future consultations and not to the issues raised at
the working Party on Consultations at this session.
Mr. BROWN (United States of America) agreed with the Australian represen-
tative that all consultations under Article XII should be carried out as fully
and as frankly as possible and that the responsibilities of the Fund in these
consultations lay in the field described in paragraph 2 of Article XV. As
regards the proposal that the Contracting, Parties should decide in advance
the precise nature of information and advice to the submitted by the Fund, he
thought that only the Fund, as the expert body in the field of exchange
matters, would be in a position to judge what information or advice would be
useful. The United States delegation therefore believed that the Fund itself
must be essentially the judge of what is a and what is not relevant to present
to the Contracting Parties in such consultations. Moreover, Article XII
envisaged consultations under a variety of circumstances. In the case of a
contracting party considering the institution of restrictions and taking
action under paragraph 4(a) of the Article, the advance consultation with
the contracting parties might be a matter of real urgency. In such cases
the Contracting Parties would be obliged to give as early notification as GATT/CP. 5/SR. 19
Page 3
possible to the Fund, since the kind of material which the Fund had to
present to the Contracting Parties could not be prepared in a very short
time. It would therefore be impracticable to have the terms of an invi-
tation to the Fund defined by the Contracting Parties at a session even if
such definition were possible. At any rate, the scope and nature of the
information and advice to be sought from the Fund were hardly susceptible
to clear-cut definition, and such consultations must be carried out on a
commonsense basis.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) agreed with the Australian represen-
tative that an understanding with the Fund on the question of procedure was of
great importance to the future of the General Agreement. Even though the separate
fields of interest of the Fund and the Contracting Parties were incapable of
complete definition, there were nevertheless two separate spheres of activity
for the two bodies which were clearly laid down in paragraph 1 of Article XV
The Belgian representative, in quoting paragraph 2 of Article XV, seemed to
have, in effect, supported rather than opposed the Australian contention.
When a bodywas called upon to express its views, it should be careful to
confine itself to its own appropriate province. In a frank and friendly
discussion the Contracting Parties should endeavour to obviatethe difficulties
created by inappropriate views of the Fund such as it had provided at this
session. The Australian representative's proposal shouldbe given full and
sympathetic consideration, since a well defined invitation to the Fund approved
in advance by the Contracting Parties would provide a better lead and guidance
both to individual contracting parties and to the Fund.
M. LECUYER (France) said that the concern expressed by certain contracting
parties was fully appreciated by the French delegation but it found itself
unable to accept the view that the scope and nature of the information and
advice to be sought from the Fund could be determined by the Contracting Parties
in advance. Quantitative restrictions and other trade matters were obviously
subjects on which only the Contracting Parties themselves were competent to
take decisions. But in practice, whilst the Fund should be free to determine
what was appropriate to advise, the Contracting Parties could, nevertheless,
decide for themselves to what extent their decisions should be affected by the
views of the Fund.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that since real difficulties had been demonstrated.
by the proceedings of the Working Party on Consultations, the problem should be
dealt with by the Contracting Parties and an understanding reached with the
Fund on the procedure for future consultations, in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 3 of Article XV. Matters relating to foreign exchange
etc., though belonging to the jurisdiction of the Fund, were closely related
to quantitative restrictions. Any agreement with the Fund regarding pro-
cedures for consultation should therefore define clearly the division of the
activities of the Fund and the Contracting Parties. It was admittedly difficult
to define the respective jurisdictions, but difficulty provided no justification
for avoiding the issue.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia), in agreement with a summary of his proposals made
by the Chairman, stated that he had in effect proposed
(i) a preliminary examination of the question of procedure, which
had been satisfactorily carried out at the present meeting; and
(ii) careful consideration by contracting parties between now and the
next session, of the problem of procedure, on which the Australian
delegation would submit definite proposals at the next session. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 19
Page 4
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the discussion, felt that it was generally
agreed that the Contracting Parties should give further reflection to the
question of procedure for consultation with the Fund, on which the Australian
Government would submit detailed proposals at the Sixth Session. It was
hoped that the Contracting Parties would be fully prepared to take up the
question at that time.
2. Closing Date of the Fifth Session (GATT/CP.5/34)
At the invitation of the CHAIRMAN, the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
summarized the outstanding work of this session and the programme envisaged
for its accomplishment.
Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) drew attention to the consultation between
Czechoslovakia and the United States which had been recommended by the Con-
tracting Parties at this session and which had not made satisfactory progress.
He suggested that a working party might be appointed to study the matter.
Mr. BROWN (United States of America) said his delegation was still pre-
pared to carry on the negotiations and was awaiting alternative proposals
from the delegation of Czechoslovakia, since the initial proposals of that
delegation had been found unacceptable to his delegation.
Mr. LECUYER (France) pointed out that it would be useful to know whether
the consultation as being carried out in favourable circumstances with a
good prospect of reaching satisfactory results. If not, it would be open
to the contracting parties concerned to bring the matter up for further
consideration.
Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) said that the United States representative
had not replied to his suggestion to set up a working party to give immediate
attention to the matter. His delegation was preparerd to continue the con-
sultation and had in fact put forward concrete proposals to the United States
delegation from which no reply had been received, nor had it offered any
counter-proposals. He would declare that Czechoslovakia was prepared to
accept any reasonable proposition embodying a compromise solution.
Mr. BROWN ( United States of America ), agreeing that a consultation
normally involved give and take by both parties, suggested that the two
delegations should get together to engage in direct consultation rather than
exchange formal correspondence.
Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) said that a second letter had been
addressed by his delegation to the United States delegation and a reply was
awiaited. He repeated that his delegation was willing to accept a compromise
solution. The Contracting Parties, however, should bear in mind the
possibility of the matter being brought up for their consideration.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the meeting take note of the discussion and
regard the matter as remaining on the Agenda pending the outcome of the
consultation.
After further discussion on the question of the closing date of the session,
in which Mr. BOTHA (Union of South Africa), Mr. BROWN (United States of America),
Mr. TONKIN (Australia), Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada), Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) and Mr. OLDINI
(Chile) participated, it was decided that the session should be brought to a
close on Saturday, 16 December 1950.
Mr.BROWN (United States) informed the Contracting Parties that he was
leaving Torquay on the following day and that Mr. Evans would be in charge of
the United States delegation after his departure.
The CHAIRMAN, on behalf of the representatives, expressed good wishes to
Mr. Brown, and welcomed Mr. Evans.
r'-2 meeting rose at 6.3 0 p.m. |
GATT Library | vn618vv8924 | Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Saturday, 1 April 1950 at 10,30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1950-04-00 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/04/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.19 1 and GATT/CP.4/SR.14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vn618vv8924 | vn618vv8924_90270108.xml | GATT_142 | 2,160 | 13,965 | with the small delegations and had no strong views as to place of
RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE 1 April 1950
ORIGINAL ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTZES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Saturday, 1 April 1950 at
10,30 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. Dana WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Revalidation.(Prolongation of the
Assured Life) of the Schedules to the
Agreement. (GATT/CP.4 /25/Annex I).
2. Accession of Sweden to the General
Agreement.
3. Report of Working Party A on Modifications
and Rectifications.
4. Records of Changes in Schedules and of
action by the Contracting Parties.
5. Report of Working Party H on the
application of Ceylon under Article XVIII
in respect of Cotton Verties.
6. Appointment of Inter-Sessional Committee
on Article XVIII. '
7. Repo rtof Working Party E on Balance of
Pmayesnt Questions.
8. Inter-sessional Cmomittee on Articles
XII, XI,II XIV.
1.evalidation (Prolongation R of the Assur edLife) of the
he§dles to the Aageementt (GATT/CP.4±/5/Annex I )
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the resolution had been approved
in principle at a previous meeting. The Annecy acceding governments
had been asked to associate themselves with the declared intention
of the Contracting Parties , and replies had been required by
31 March, failing which their concurrence would be assumed. The
replies received were circulated, and Nicaragua had previously
notified its agreement with the United Kingdom's original proposal.
The Resolution was adopted. GATT/ .4/SR.19
Page 2
2. Accession of Sweden to the General Agreement
The CHAIRMAN informed the Contracting Parties that
Sweden had signed the Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession
on March 31 and would become a contracting party in
thirty days. He welcomed the new contracting party.
3. Report of Working Party A on Modifications and Rectifications
(GATT/CP .4/34 and GATT/CP/57)
Mr. BENES (Czechoslovalia) introduced the report calling the
attention of contracting parties to the proposed departure from
accustomed procedure so as to include in the Protocol only
rectifications to the authentic texts of the schedules.
Rectifications to the non-authentic texts were incorporated in an
annex. With a view to avoiding any complication which might
arise because of any delayed entry into force of this Protocol,
the Working Party had annexed to its report a declaration concern-
ing the schedules of Indonesia. It was proposed that this
declaration be approved by the Contracting Parties at the present
session in order that the present Section C of Schedule II of
the General Agreement and Schedule II of Annex A of the Annecy
Protocol be considered as Schedule XXI of the General Agreement.
The present Section C of Schedule II would, however, remain
applicable to New Guinea as a section of Schedule II. The
Report was then considered by the Contracting Parties.
The Report as a whole was approved including the
recommendation contained in paragraph 2 and the Declaration
relating to new Schedule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN associated himself with the remarks contained
in Paragraph 1 deprecating the long delays in the entry into
force of the Third Protocol of Rectifications and the First
Protocol of Modifications.
Subject to the correction of the typographical errors in the
Indonesian Schedule, pointed out by Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN, the
Fourth Protocol of Rectifications and the corrigendum to the
non-authentic texts of the Schedules were approved.
The CHAIRMAN emphasized the importance of signing this
Protocol at the end of the present session or, if this should not
be possible, without delay at the Headquarters of the United Nations.
4. Records of Changes in Schedules and of Action by the
Contracting Parties
Mr. EVANS (United States) alluding to the lengthy and
numerous documents which had been drawn up by the Contracting
Parties in their four sessions, proposed that the Secretariat
compile and circulate a list of all actions taken affecting the
Schedules, by schedule and affected item, and indicating, after GATT/CP .4/SR. 19
Page 3.
each item number, an appropriate reference to the document
reflecting the action taken with respect to that item.
For the purpose of simplifying as much as possible the
use of the ever-expanding series of documents, he proposed
that the Secretariat prepare a check list of all the results,
decisions and like actions of the Contracting Parties, whether
or not included in analogous collections which the Secretariat
had circulated at the end of previous sessions, and give
a short statement as to the action taken. He suggested that
reference be made also to documents containing information
relevant to a complete understanding of the action taken and to
documents indicating subsequent action taken pursuant to it.
He proposed that the two lists be compiled and circulated with
a. view to the subsequent issue of supplements keeping them up
to date.
The proposal was approved by the Contracting Parties.
5. Report of Working Party H on the Application of Ceylon under
Article XVIII in respect of Cotton Verties (GATT/CP.4/32)
In the absence .of the Chairman of the Working Party, the
CHAIRMAN introduced the Report which, he said, was satisfactory
to all the parties concerned. The Working Party had very
carefully considered the suggestions of the governments
participating in the London negotiations and had, in particular,
studied the eligibility of the measure in question under the
provisions of paragraph 5 of Article XVIII. They had also
studied the question whether the figure suggested by the
negotiating countries "for the maximum domestic availability"
was appropriate. Great precautions had been taken to see that
there should be no possible complaint in regard to the
legality of the recommended release after it had become
effective. For this reason they had recommended that the
release should not become effective until the expiration of a
period of 30 days from the time of the decision.
The report as a whole was approved and the recommended
decision to grant the release to Ceylon was approved by
20 votes in favour and none against.
Mr. KOELMEYER (Ceylon) thanked the Contracting Parties for
their decision. GATT/CP. 4 /SR. 19
Page 4.
6. Appointment of Inter-Sessional Committee on Article XVIII
The Contracting Parties agreed to appoint a Committee to
consider and report on applications made under Article XVIII
between the Fourth and Fifth Sessions in regard to new
measures, composed as follows:
Dr. de Vries (Indonesia), Chairman;
Australia, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, France,
India, Netherlands, United Kingdom and
United States.
7, Report of Working Party E on Balance-of-Payments Questions
( GATT/CP . 4 /38)
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada), Chairman of the Working Party,
introduced the report, which took the form of a letter of
transmittal to the Contracting Parties of the following:
(i) The Draft Report by the Contracting Parties on the
discriminatory application of import restrictions (GATT/CP.4/37)
was based on the replies of governments to the questionnaire
circulated by the Secretariat and on the further information
supplied by representatives in the course of the meetings of
the Working Party. He called the attention of the Contracting
Parties to the statement that in the preparation of this draft
report the Working Party had agreed that it was not required
of them to consider whether measures being taken by the
reporting countries were consistent with the Agreement. He
also pointed out that it had been left. to the Contracting Parties
to decide whether the report should be published, and that it
was recomnended that a limited circulation be given to the
replies to the questionnaire. Governments should be asked
by the Secretariat to correct any errors of fact contained in
their replies.
(ii) Their second report (GATT/CP.4/35) related to the submission
of information required by paragraph 1 of Annex J. They had
felt that in the interests of economy of effort this information
be requested with the questionnaires which were to bu sent out
in other connections. They had recommended that if any action
were taken between the submission of annual reports the
Secretariat should be informed. GATT/CP.4/SR.19
Page 5.
(iii) Their third report (GATT/CP.4/31) dealt with the
intensification of restrictions and the countries which should
consult with the Contracting Parties. In view of the fact that
the International Monetary Fund would not be ready to enter into
full consultation with the Contracting Parties with respect to
the countries mentioned in the report, except for the United
Kingdom, the Working Party recommended that consultations with
all the countries mentioned take place at the Fifth Session
of the Contracting Parties.
(iv) With regard to the fourth report before them on the
communications from South Africa (GATT/CP.4/36), the Working
Party recommended that the consultation undertaken by South
Africa under Article XII: 4(a) be considered as having been
satisfactorily concluded, whereas any consideration of the
discriminatory aspects of the South African programme would have
to be deferred pending the receipt of a report from the Inter-
national Monetary Fund.
Mr. BOTHA (South Africa) wished to express his appreciation
to the Chairman and members of the Working Party for the high
quality of their work. He was attending a meeting of the
Contracting Parties for the first time and had been impressed
by, the spirit of friendliness and understanding which prevailed
among representatives.
The four reports were then discussed.
(i) First Report (1950) by the Contracting Parties on the
Discriminatory Application of Import Restrictions under
the transitional period arrangements of Article XIV
(GATT/CP.4/37)
The Contracting Parties accepted the recommendations of the
Working Party that the report be issued as an unrestricted
document.
After the five sections of the Report had been approved
separately, the Report as a whole was approved.
(ii) Submission of reports required by paragraph 1 of Annex J
The CHAIRMAN stated that the decision on the questionnaire
to be circulated by the Secretariat would be taken in the course
of the examination of the report of Working Party D and the
Report was approved. GATT/CP. 4/SR. 19
Page 6.
(iii) Consultation on the Intensification of Import
Restrictions required by Article XII: 4 (b)
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that he had asked the
Chairman of the Working Party whether a contracting party which
had intensified its restrictions against Belgium should be asked
to enter into consultation with his country. The Chairman
had informed him that his question was not covered by the
terms of reference of the Working Party. The Working Party
had, in fact, been asked to determine which countries were
substantially intensifying import restrictions and should
therefore be invited to consult with the Contracting Parties.
He therefore wished to take the opportunity to request that
the consultations should cover the whole field and should
include an examination of the effect of the measures on the
countries which were discriminated against. In a previous
discussion he had expressed his surprise that the United
Kingdom delegation did not think it appropriate to discuss the
matter of intensification with Belgium because of the
existence of a bilateral agreement between their two countries.
In a discussion he had had with representatives of the United
Kingdom they had decided to leave the matter open and he now
wished to ask the United Kingdom representative whether they
agreed to discuss the question in their consultation with the
Contracting Parties despite the existence of a bilateral
agreement.
Mr. SPARKS (United Kingdom) said that his delegation would
agree that there had been an intensification of restrictions
in the sense of Article XII, but that the argument of Belgium
related more to Article XIV under which action was taken by the
United Kingdom with respect to Belgium. In saying this he
wished to add that in the proposed consultation under Article XII
his government was prepared to discuss fully all relevant questions
including any which Belgium night wish to raise.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) said that his ruling in the Working
Party to which the Belgian representative had referred was due
to his wish not to anticipate in any way the decisions of the
Contracting Parties. It was clear that when consultations would
take place the Belgian Government would be in a position fully
to discuss any aspect of the import programmes of the countries
entering into consultation, GATT/CP.4/SR. 19
Page 7.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) thanked the representative of the
United Kingdom and Mr. Deutsch for their assurance that he could
discuss his problem.
The recommendation of the Working Party that consultations
take place at the Fifth Session with Australia, Ceylon, Chile,
India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and the United
Kingdom was approved.
(iv) South African Import Restrictions (GATT/CP.4/36)
The Report was approved.
8. Inter - Sessional Committee on Articles XII, XIII, XIV.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that, in view of the plans that had
been, made for the work of the Fifth Session, it was unlikely
that the Contracting Parties would be confronted with a need
for urgent decisions between the present and the next session.
He therefore recommended that the arrangement made at the
Third Session, whereby the Chairman could set up a Working
Party, should the need arise, should be allowed to remain.
The Contracting Parties approved the Chairman's proposal.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | cv913cn2565 | Summary Record of the Ninth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England, on Wednesday, 8 November, 1950, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 9, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/9 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cv913cn2565 | cv913cn2565_90270129.xml | GATT_142 | 1,276 | 8,446 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE 9 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England,
on Wednesday, 8 November, 1950, at 10.30 a.rn.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Suggestions for Standard Practices under the
Administration of Import and Export Licences
and Exchange Controls (GATT/CP.5/8) (continued).
2. The Continuation of the Trade News Bulletin
(GATT/CP.5/14) .
1. Suggestions for Standard Practices under the Administration of Import
and:Export Licences and Exchange Controls to Minimize Commercial
Uncertainties and Hardships (GATT/CP.5/8) (continued).
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) wished to support the proposal which, he said,
would servo a useful purpose in reducing uncertainty and arbitrariness in
licensing of imports and exports. He could accept the proposal in more or less
the same terms in which it had been formulated, but his delegation might raise
some mincr points in the discussion in the Working Party; certain amendments
to the text would be necessary in order to allow for emergency action to cope
with unexpected monetary changes.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) supported the proposal, and mentioned certain
points which would, in his opinion, require amendment, He agreed with the
recommendation that import licences should carry with them an assurances that
foreign exchange would be available, but in the case of "clearing" agreements
this was not always possible, because a reduction of exports, due to seasonal
or other causes, might unbalance the account, and exchange for imports would not
be available until the trend had been reversed. Secondly, the period of thirty
days allowed in paragraph 2 appeared too long. Thirdly,,as a reasonable; share
for newcomers he did not think that all countries would agree to as much as
20%; the practice in his country was to allow 10%. He suggested that the whole
proposal could .adequately be disposed of withcut referring it to a Working
Party; the Secretariat might prepare a new draft and circulate it to governrnents
for comments.
Mr. AHMAD (Pakistan) expressed his appreciation of the initiative
of the United States Delegation, but in view of the fact that the paper was
only circulated at the middle of last month, he had not yet received instructions,
and asked for deferment of the discussion.
The CHAIRMAN replied that whether a Working Party was set up or not,
delegates would have time to submit their cornments.
Mr. MACFARLANE (Southern Rhodosia) considered the proposal of the
greatest interest, and did not agree with the representative of Norway that they
could dispense with a Working Party. He regretted the paper had been circulated
so late that his delegation had net seen it before leaving their country. As
to the final outcome of their discussion, he felt that it should take the form
of a recommendation to all contracting parties to follow the methods indicated. GA.TT/CP. 5/SR. 9
Page 2
Mr LECKIE (United-Kingdom) welcomed the proposal which was,
in general, acceptable to his delegation. He considered that the
contracting parties should be exhcrted to adept certain standard practices,.
on the details of .which they would have some comments to make. In his opinion,
the proposal went too far in certain directions,. and not far enough in
others.
Mr. ARGYROPOULOS (Greece) supported the proposal, and suggested
that a certain degree of latitude should be left to contracting parties to
adapt their policies to changing circumstances.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) agreed with the principles of the proposal.
With regard to paragraph 1, he said that in his country foreign exchange was
granted automatically .with the licence, but that this could not be taken to
signify an unqualified cmmitment that it would be available at any future
date. He found himself at variance with the representative of Norway, ..in
that he considered the thirty days' grace in paragraph 2 too restrictive
rather than too liberal. .
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) agreed with the proposal, and said he would
submit his comments on matters of detail to the Working Party, which, he
felt sure, would have to be set,up. It was clear that the result of their
deliberations could only take the form of recommendations.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) considered that a discussion of the
matter among experts would, in itself, be useful as providing an opportunity
for a profitable exchange of views. As to the form of their conclusions,
he thouht they might follow the example of the Working Party on Quantitative
Restrictions at the Fourth Sessicn, which recommended that certain practices
be followed.
Mr. BROWN (United States) said he was gratifed at the reception
of their proposal which had been put foreward as a basis for.discussion. He
reed .with the view that they should aim at a recommendaion to contracting
parties to follow certain standard practices.
The CHAIRMAN said the proposal had met with a favourable recepticn.
It did not appear, hower, that the Norwegian suggestion of dispensing
with a Working Party had found support. He pointed out that there remained
for consideration the proposal of the Delegation of Czechoslvakia to amend
the paper before them to include expert licences and controls.
Mr. BROWN (United States) informed the meeting that he had no
objection t: the adoption of the Czechoslevak amendments to the United
States paper.
The amendments to document GATT/CP.5/8, proposed by the Delegation
of Czechoslvakia at the provious meeting, were adopted.
Dr. VAZNA (Czechoslevakia) thanked the representative of the United
States.
The Contracting Parties agreed to set up a Working Party composed
of representatives of the following delegatins: GATT/CP. 5/SR. 9
page .3
Australia Pakistan
Brazil Sweden
Czechoslovakia South Africa
France United Kingdom
Netherlands United States
under the Chairmanship of' Dr. Steyn (South Africa) to study, in the light
of the discussion in the Contracting Parties, the proposals made by the
United States under item 13 of the Agenda and to submit revised proposals
for the approval of the Contracting Parties.
2. The Continuation of the Trade News Bulletin (GATT/CP. 5/14)
The CHAIRMAN referred to the note by the Executive Secretary,
which recalled hat at the Fourth Session the Contracting Parties had
approved the temporary publication of the Trade News Bulletin, and had
agreed to re-examine the matter at the Fifth Session.
A discussion followed in which representatives of Austria,
Canada, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, India, New Zealand, Norvway,
Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom and the
United States of America supported the continuation of the Bulletin.
Dr. VAN BLANKESTEIN (Netherlands) did not share the opinion
of other speakers with regard to the usefulness of the Bulletin. The
Secretariat had to rely on unofficial as well as official sources, but
even some of the information taken from official sources referred to measures
of countries other than the one which published it. Departments of his
Goverment relied on the work of their information service, and could
count not only on official sources but also on reports from their own
representatives abroad.
Other delegations found that the Bulletin served a useful
purpose in extricating from a great mass of miscellaneous published material,
and placing in focus, current events relating to the application of the
Agreement.
The representatives of smaller countries, which could not count
on highly developed information services, fcund great help in the
Secretariat's compilation and classification.
Several delegates suggested that the contracting parties arrange
for regular transmission to the Secretariat of notices cf now measures. A
suggestion was also made that Governments, when notifying measures, might
usefully add, if and when they thought it appropriate, a short commentary.
There was general agreement that the Secretariat had wisely avoided editorial
comment.
M. LECUYEM (France) proposed that a French edition be provided.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | bb138kf0364 | Summary Record of the Ninth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday, 1 March, 1950, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 1, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 01/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.9 and GATT/CP.4/SR.8-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bb138kf0364 | bb138kf0364_90270088.xml | GATT_142 | 3,998 | 25,254 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE
RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
GATT/CP.4/SR.9
1 March 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE NINTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Wednesday, 1 March, 1950, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman:
Subjects discussed:
Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. Press Release on the Agenda
2. Tariff Negotiations (other plans
and arrangements) - continuation
of the discussion.
3. Application of Annecy Schedule
X1V (Norway) (GATT/CP.4/18).
4. Consideration of Quantitative
Restrictions on Imports and Exports
(GATT/CP.4/13 and 14) .
1. Press Release on the Agenda.
The CHAIRMAN recalled the decision made at the first
meeting that the press release concerning the Agenda would
require approval by the contracting parties. A revised
draft had just been circulated to the delegations.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) felt that the comments on
item 14 did not quite describe the item as finally approved
and suggested that the reference to balance-of-payments
might be deleted.
The CHAIRMAN suggested an alternative wording for two
of the phrases, and this was approved.
2. "Tariff Negotiations (other Plans and Arrangements)" -
(Continuation of Discussion)
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that the fact that the
German tariff would not be available until 15 May meant that
it would be impossible to prepare the lists of requests on
Germany in time to meet the date of 15 June specified for
submission of Requests. Would it not be necessary then to
take a decision to postpone this date of 15 June for the GATT/CP.4/SR.9
page 2
submission of these lists. He suggested possibly 30 June
or 15 July as a new date for requests on Germany; however,
this should not alter the date of 15 June for the submission
of lists by the German Federal Republic to other countries,
since the former would have received the necessary material
to prepare the requests in time. He did not think the
principle of reciprocity would be lost by this procedure.
On behalf of the Delegate of Luxemburg, he wished to
remind delegations that Luxemburg had no separate trade
statistics, since there was a complete customs union with
Belgium.
Mr. IMHOFF (German Federal Republic) replied that he
would send the proposal of the Belgian Delegate to his
Government, He personally saw no..difficulty in acceding
to it. He also requested prompt submission of tariffs
and statistics by other participating governments since so
far very few had been received.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) wished to apologise for the fact
that the Norwegian tariff was being submitted in Norwegian,
and hoped that the translation being made by the Brussels
Tariff Bureau would be ready before 15 June.
Mr. SUDJONO (Indonesia) requested the indulgence of
the contracting parties if there were some delay in sub-
mitting material on the part of his Government. This would
be sent as soon as possible.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) supported the request for the
early dispatch of portions of the German tariff. He hoped
all the necessary material from Canada had been received by
the various countries, but if it had not he would take
immediate steps to see that they did receive it. Concerning
the exchange of lists of products, while he would not
question the wisdom of those who had decided to forego this
step, he did hope that not many countries would omit sending
these lists as serious delays might occur later in the
procedure as a result.
On the question of advance information on the possible
scope of the tariff negotiations he proposed that the
Secretariat ask all participating governments to inform them
of the other governments with whom they proposed to negotiate.
It would be useful for delegations to know with whom other
countries were negotiating because of the principal supplier
rule and the possibility of indirect benefits. GATT/CP.4/SR.9
page 3
The CHAIRMAN in commenting on the Canadian. proposal
said that most countries probably had a fairly clear idea of
those with whom they were prepared to negotiate. The
Secretariat might issue a questionnaire to the representa-
tives of the participating governments now in Geneva, and
send telegrams to those not present at this Session, and
might also inquire what countries were delaying sending
request lists before deciding with whom to negotiate owing
to the failure to receive tariffs and statistics. The
answers to the first question would be of assistance to the.
Secretariat in planning the Conference since there was a.
maximum of 703 negotiations possible.
It was aggreed that this would be useful.
Mr. .SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested that the
questionnaire also include an inquiry as to which countries
had requested a rebinding of the Geneva and Annecy Schedules.
This would be useful to the working party on revalidation.
of these Schedules. The enquiry should be sent to both
contracting parties and Annecy acceding governments.
This was agreed.
Mr. IMHOFF (German Federal Republic), referring to his
statement of the day before, wished to give some explanation
of the current revision of the German tariff. He explained
that the present tariff dated from 1902 and, consequently,
its nomenclature was not up-to-date. Furthermore, duties
were almost entirely specific and did not correspond to
the present economic situation. The fundamental changes in
the German economy an in the international situation required
a general revision of the tariff. The German Federal
Republic in making this reform had decided to use the customs
nomenclature agreed to by the European Customs Union
Study Group. They also decided, except in a very few cases,
to change from the system of.specific to ad valorem duties.
He wished to emphasize that the German Federal Government
considered that countries participating in tariff negotiations
should not improve their position for bargaining purposes
before entering into such negotiations. However, in the
case of the revision of the German tariff it was not possible
to retain all the old duties and simply limit themselves to
altering them from specific to ad valorem rates. Consequently,
their revision was based on the principIe that the general GATT/CP .4/SR. 9
page 4
incidence cf duties should not be increased even though
certain duties might be increased. In no case would
these result in prohibitive or excessive duties. He
repeated that it did not seem possible to complete the work
on the tariff before 15 May;
The CHAIRMAN considered that the discussion on plans
and arrangements had been adequate; the matter would be
kept on the Agenda and reverted to at the end of the Session.
The request for the extension of the date for submission of
requests on Germany could be dealt with at that time
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the success of the
negotiations at Geneva and Annecy had largely been due to
the spirit of the governments taking part therein. The
1950 negotiations would be even more extensive. They would
be, in fact, the most ambitious multilateral tariff negotia-
tions ever contemplated. It was, therefore, important to
see that every effort was made to ensure their success.
This meant that as many bilateral negotiations as possible
should take place, and he considered that the only justification
for not negotiating would be a finding that no basis for
trade existed between the two countries. It was essential
that the procedure set forth in the Memorandum on Tariff
Negotiations (GATT/CP/43) should be complied with.,
Countries had already been made aware of the difficulties
which arose through failure to distribute tariffs and trade
statistics sufficiently in advance, and it was only possible
to remedy this situation with the cooperation of all partici-
pating governments Each country should not only see that
it had fulfilled its own obligations in these matters, but
should also ensure that it had received the necessary
material from other countries, If a direct approach in the
case of missing documents failed to result in their receipts
then the country should so inform the Secretariat, which
would/remedy the matter. June 15 was the most important
date as it was the date for the exchange of lists of requests.
This must be adhered to in order for countries to have
sufficient time to prepare their lists of offers before the
beginning of the negotiations.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) wished to refer to the
question he had raised the day before regarding the differen-
tial customs duty imposed in Germany on agricultural produ..
He had spoken to the German Delegate, who had said that a
statement on this question would be made at today's meeting; GATT/CP.4/SR. 9
page 5
Mr. IMHOFF (German Federal Republic) said he would give
a preliminary reply to this question; The system concerned
only agricultural products, and was maintained in order to
compensate for the higher prices of foreign agricultural
products in comparison with internal prices. The proceeds
of the tariff were used to subsidize domestic production,
The system, however, had been planned only until 30 June,
1950, and would end with the issue of the new tariff if not
before. The discriminatory character of the system had
already been eliminated.
(Norway (Note by The Executive Secretary (GATT/CP.4/18)
The CHAIRMAN said that the only thing necessary at the
present stage was to approve the procedure suggested in this
papers If this procedure were approved the Secretariat
would ascertain from the Annecy acceding governments whether
there were any objections to the extension of time for Norway
to give notification of intention to apply the concessions
negotiated at Annecy. If favourable replies were received
the draft decision could be formally approved by the
Contracting Parties;
This was agreed.
4. Consideration of Restrictions on Imports
and Exports (GATT/CP.4/13 and 14).
The CHAIRMAN recalled the developments leading to the
adoption of this agenda item and drew attention to the
proposal by the United States delegation to set up a working
party and the draft terms of reference for such a working party
presented by that delegation in GATT/CP.4/17 . The proposed
terms of reference had been agreed in advance.
Mr. GRADY (United States) made a statement which is
attached as an annex to this summary record.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) supported the proposal
to set up a working partya.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) supported the proposal that a
working party be set up to give close study to the subject.
The types of practices named in the United States proposal were
often seen.in bilateral negotiations, and whether or not they
were legally in violation of the provisions of the Agreement, GATT/CP.4/SR. 9
page 6
they ran counter to its basic principles. The problem
being world-wide and of grave importance called for the
serious study by the Contracting Parties preferably by means
of a working part.
Mr- CASSIERS (Belgium) also believed that the problem
was too complicated and vast to be discussed only in
plenary meeting. He therefore favoured the proposal of
a working party. The subject was important to the world
trade question; for the value of the General Agreement would
be lost if contracting parties made no change in their
protectionist policies.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Nor way); referring to the United States
memorandum on Export Restrictions, pointed out that the text
of paragraph 11(a) of Article XX, which was taken from the
Geneva draft of the ITO Charter, was different from the
corresponding provision as finally adopted at Havana. He
recalled that the proposal in 1948 to replace all those
provisions in the General agreement which differed from the
corresponding prov isions in the Havana Charter, with the
texts of the latter, had resulted Only in a few changes'
The supercession of Article XX by Article 45 of the Havana
Charter had been considered unnecessary because the prevailing
belief at that time was that the Havana Charter would be
in force by January 1, l951; It was evident at present that
the presumption was unlikely to be fulfilled; the Norwetian
Government was therefore contemplating making a proposal for
the supercession of Article XX by the text of Article 45 of
the Havana Chartere.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netlherlands) wished to associate
himself with the remarks of the Belgian representatives The
Netherlands was anxious to abolish import restrictions but,
deprived of its prewar overseas incomes. it could not hope
to balance its account without increasing greatly its exports.
At present, apart from the hindrance of the import restric-
tions applied by most countries, trade was still hampered by
the high tariffs of certain countries, mostly much higher
than that of the Benelux customs union even after the tariff
negotiations.
An early elimination of quantitative restrictions without
regard to facts would probably worsen the present situation
by deepening the causes of the disequilibrium. He supported,
however, the proposal to refer the problem to a working
party. GATT/CP .4/SR. 9
page 7
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) wished to stress the com-
plexity and delicacy of the problem on hand . There was,
for instance, always the danger that an import restriction
imposed for balance of payments reasons might be toe
severely condemned because it had had the effect of causing
the expansion of a domestic industry. To reprimand unduly
a government for maintaining quantitative restrictions
might induce it more readily to resort to a higher tariff,
which was after all a more permanent means of protection
The working party therefore should avoid at this stage
engaging in any detailed examination of individual cases.
Frank discussion was more likely to take place if the
subject discussed were "types" of resolutions rather than
particular instances.
Mr. GRADY (United States) said it was not impossible to
clarify the instructions to the Working party. If the
economic set up of a country were known, it would not be
difficult to detect the motivation behind a quantitative
restriction., imposed by its government. Formulae could
be designed to distinguish doubtful, marginal cases, and a
great deal would be revealed by careful study.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) felt somewhat disappointed by
the arguments which had been presented but had been con-
vinced of the need to set up a working party to study the
problem. In order to carry out the thorough examination
envisaged in Article XII at the beginning of 1951, documenta.-
tion should be prepared in advance, and this could be done
by such a working party.
Mr.GRADY (United States), reverting to the problem of
import restrictions; made a second statement which is also
reproduced in the Annex.
Mr. PHILIP (France) enquired as to the real scope of
the problem which the working party would be asked to deal
with It was not clear whether it had to deal with those
complex cases in which restrictions were imposed for the
protection of a certain industry whose existence was essen-
tial from the balance of payments point of views or in which
.restrictions imposed for balance of payments reasons had
resulted in a certain degree of protection. GATT/CP .4/SR. 9
page 8
None would wish to renounce the principle of the
elimination of quantitative restrictions laid down at Geneva
and Havana, but no more could it be denied that there had
been a change in the state of mind since the early days of
the post-war period. In 1947 when the General Agreement
was drawn up it was generally believed that the disequilibrium
in the international balance was merely the result of the
.disruption and devastation caused by the wars and that the
relations between the economies of the world would soon be
restored to the pre-war pattern. This belief had since
proved to be an illusion, and indeed the disequilibrium in
balance of payments was now generally regarded as a
permanent problem. At least, one could not help wondering
whether Europe could achieve the semblance of an equilibrium
with the rest of the world by 1952.
It was doubtful whether such far-reaching problems could
be dealt with by a working party or whether it could shun
the problem and confine itself within the terms of reference.
The Agreement provided for restrictions to be imposed
for certain purposes, and also prescribed certain conditions
for their administration. It would be profitable to
examine from time to time whether these rules were observed
If the main objectives of the GATT were not to be forgotten,
inefficient industrialists should certainly not be allowed
to take refuge behind restrictiv trade barriers. Nor would
the continued maintenance of restrictions help to restore
international equilibrium; and if the disequilibrium regarded
in 1947 as temporary had become more permanent, the cure lay
only in concerted action and not in intensification of
restrictions. The working party should therefore be given
a broad mandate for it to engage in a thorough investigations.
He therefore agreed with the representatives of the United
States and Belgium that a through investigation could be
made of the use and misuse of quantitative restrictions under
the terms of the General Agreement.
In document SECRET/CP/5.Add.2 the United States stated
that it considered the current disequilibrium in world trade
and payments was neither permanent nor intractable This
had been the general belief three years ago, but the causes
of the disequilibrium were now generally believed to be much
deeper than had then been understood. -In spite of the
improvement in the European situation as a result of recent. GA TT/CP.4/'SR . 9
page
efforts, there remained the fundamental unbalance in the
form of a chronic dollar shortage. This was a collective
problem which had to be solved jointly and it would be in
nobody's interest to. have still to face this grave problem
in 1951.
The CHIRMAN proposed adjourning discussion of this
item until the next, meeting.
After a discussion on the programme of work for the
following week, the meeting adjourned at 6.10 p.m. GATT/CP.4./SR,9
page 10
Two statements by Mr. Grady (United States).
1) Any comments which I can make with respect to this
agenda item at this stage in our deliberations will necessarily
be a little anticlimatic. For some days now we have nibbled
away at the edges of the problem, so .that by this time the
general scope of the inquiry which the United States is
suggesting must be reasonably clear to the contracting parties.
Neverthless, I should like to make some remarks in the form
of a recapitulation and summary of what the United States has
said with regard to these subjects in past meetings of this
sessions
Let me turn first to the problem of expert restrictions.
By and large, as you all know, the number and importance of
quantitative restrictions on exports has declined in the past
year, as world shortages have tended to disappear. In the
process however it has become clear that a variety of expert
restriction practices are outliving the short supply situations
and threaten to continue to be with us for some years to come.
For example, here and there throughout the world; one still
discerns countries which are using export restrictions on
products desired by their trading partners as a means of
selling the products which those partners feel they cannot
afford to buy. Here and there, too, one still finds
countries using export restrictions as a bargaining device
for acquiring products which other countries in their turn
are reluctant to release. One finds also, that a significant
number of countries prohibit or drastically restrict the
export of raw materials which cannot reasonably be said to be
in scarce supply, in order to give a domestic fabricating
industry an advantage over the fabricating industries of
neighbouring countries Finally, we have noted that a
number of countries which are the predominant sources of a
particular product in some area of the world are assisting
their exporters to maintain minimum prices and to avoid
competition among themselves, through export licensing pro-
cedures which call for minimum prices on the exports involved.
No one who understands the great compulsions and pressures
to which every government is exposed can fail to view with
sympathy and understanding the efforts on occasions on the
part of governments to use their exports as a bargaining
lever in international trade. In these uncertain times,
when many countries of the world still lack some essential
materials and are short of the wherewithal to acquire those
essential materials it is readily understandable that they
will be tempted to turn to any bargaining weapon at hand to
achieve their legitimate national aspirations or to meet
internal political pressures. Yet, most countries will agree
that as they take these unilateral measures to increase their
share of the world's goods, their actions may very well be
having the fundamental effect of shrinking the overall total
of those goods.
It is the great virtue of the GATT that it lays down a
set of rules designed to maintain an expanding volume of world
trade and productions What the United States is in fact
proposing is that we explore these export restrictions, which GATT/CP.4/SR.9
page 11
we are convinced in the aggregate are having a dampening
effect on production and world trade, to determine to what
extent the provisions of the GATT circumscribe the kind of
restrictions to which I have already referred and other
restrictions like them. The United States hopes that there
will emerge from such an exploration two concrete results
First, by examining the various types of export restrictions
now being applied, we should hope to clarify their consistency
or-inconsistency with the GATT's provisions. Second, if the
need for further information and further study becomes
apparent we should hope to obtain an instruction to the
Secretariat: to collect such further information on the
subject. For these purposes, Mr. Chairman, I propose that
a working party .be set up.
For the moment this is all I shall have to say regarding
the export restriction aspect of the agenda.item. I should
like to suggest, Mr. Chairman,that it may expedite the con-
sideration of the agenda item by the Contracting Parties if
we pause here for a discussion of this aspect. I would then
propose to present the import restrictions problem after out
preliminary discussion of the export problem was completed.
2) In turning to quantitative import restrictions, we deal
with a problem which is :very much more difficult from many
points of view than the problem of export restrictions. The
United States is satisfied that much of the protective in-
cidence of quantitative restrictions on imports is an un-
avoidable by-product of the primary objective of meeting
balance of payments difficulties. On the other hand, the
United States is equally convined that a substantial body
of import restrictions exist which cannot fairly be said to
be essential for balance of payments reasons and which are
motivated primarily by protective considerations. And
between these extremes, there is a great, grey area of res-
trictions in which the balance of payments motivation and the
protective motivation are so thoroughly intermingled that I
daresay the countries instituting the restrictions could not
themselves say which was the controlling motivations
What the United States is proposing to the Contracting
Parties is that we should begin to define the black end of
this spectrum of restrictions. The United States would hope
that various types of import restrictions would be considered
in relation to the GATT's provisions and objectives and that
it might be possible by way of interpretation or opinion,
to provide guidance to the individual contracting parties
on the meaning of the GATT in this highly difficult and
contentious areas
At the same time, the United States would hope that
other results of equal importance could be achived in a
discussion of quantitative import restrictions. First we
will have clarified among ourselves the form and objectives GATT/CP.4/SR .9
page 12
which our January 1951 study of quantitative import
restrictions will take, Second, we- will have had the
opportunity to reaffirm among ourselves the important
principle that quantitaive import restrictions should, in
general, not be used for protective p. poses. And
finally, we will have affirmed to the world the sincerity
of our purpose of eliminating quantitative restrictions as
fast as the balance of payments situation permits with
the end of returning to a situation in which multilateral
trade and declining trade barriers charactoriize the
commercial relations among the member countries. : |
GATT Library | xd130yk6072 | Summary Record of the Second Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.2/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xd130yk6072 | xd130yk6072_90270117.xml | GATT_142 | 251 | 1,839 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS LIMITED GATT/CP.5/SR.2/Corr. 1
13 November 1950 BILINGUAL
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SECOND MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 5, paragraph 5
The last sentence in the statement of Mr. STEYN (South Africa)
should read as follows:
"Indirect reference to the question of the restrictions at
present applicable to the trade between the two territories
is contained in paragraph 4 of the Council's proposed plan
of action for the ensuing twelve months where the Council
has announced its intention to familiarise itself with the
nature and conditions of the secondary industries in the
two countries. In studying those conditions it will,
amongst others, be the objective of the Council to ascertain
what action can be taken to remove the existing restrictions
on the trade between the two countries".
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Cinquième Session COARTE-RE LU DE LA DEUXIEME SEANCE Corrigendum Page 5, paragraphe 5
La dernière phrase de la déclaration de. . . STR'i (Afrique du Sua) doit être libellée comme suit:
"Dans le programme des mesures que le Conseil envisage de prendre
pendant les douze mois à venir, l'aIinéa 4 fuit indirectement
allusion à la question des restrictions qui s'appliquent actuclle-
ment aux échanger commerciaux entre les dlux. territoires. En
effct, dans ect alinéa, Ie indique qu'il a l'intention.
d'entreprondre une étude permettant de mie . connfire la nature
Dans I'étude de ces conditions, le Conseil s'attachera, notammente
mereiaux entre les deux pays" |
GATT Library | dd062js6250 | Summary Record of the Second Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Friday, 3 November 1950 at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 6, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.2 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dd062js6250 | dd062js6250_90270116.xml | GATT_142 | 2,792 | 18,129 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP. 5/SR. 2
6 November 1950
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SECOND MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay,
on Friday, 3 November 1950 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Request by the Delegation of Czechoslovakia
for the addition of a news item to the Agenda.
2. Tariff Negotiations (in so far as this item
relates to the position of Uruguay in the
Torquay Tariff Negotiations following the
recommendations of the Tariff Negotiations
Committee). (GATT/TN. 2/23/Rev. 1)
3. Article XVIII - Notifications of existing
protective measures by Denmark
(GATT/CP. 3/40 Add. 3 and GATT/CP/77)
Haiti (GATT/CP. 3/40, GATT/(CP/60 and Add. 1)
and Italy (GATT/CP.3/30/Add. 1, GATT/CP/49
and Add. 1).
4. South Affrica - Southern Rhodesia Customs
Union: First Annual Report of the Customs
Union Council.
5. Consolidation of Schedules. (GATT/CP.5/4).
6. Schedule IX - Cuba: Report on renegotiations
with the United States (GATT/CP/71 and Amend. 1
and Add. 1).
The CHAIRMAN stated that the meeting would proceed with the items in
the order agreed on the preceding day (document T/18).
14 Request by the iDelegation of Czechoslovakia for the addition of a now
item to the Agenda
Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czecheoslovakia) raised a point of order. He proposed the
addition to the Agenda of an item to read as follows:
"The problem of the security of tariff negotiations with regard to the
application of Article XIX of the Agreement."
The CHAIRMAN read Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure which provides for the
Agenda to bc amended at any time, and opened the discussion on the inclusion of
the proposed new item.
Mr. BROWN (United States) explained that, although his delegation saw no
difficulty in discussing problems arising under the application of Article XIX,
he found it difficult to judge whether the proposed item should be included
in the Agenda without an explanation of exactly what it was intended to cover,
He preferred to reserve his position until such a paper had been submitted. :: \ ; ~:. :. n
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 2
Page 2.
In reply to a question by the Chairman, Dr. BYSTRICKY said that he
saw no reason why the item he had proposed should not be added without an
explanatory paper. Many items had been agreed to on the preceding day which
did not have such explanations . He would, of course, submit - paper shortly.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the items discussed at the preceding
meeting were those proposed in accordance with Rule 2 of the Rules of
procedure, i.e. items proposed for inclusion "up to ones month from the
date of meeting". The Czechoslovak items was notified under Rule 4 rather
thaln Rule 2.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought there could bo no
inconvenience for the Czechoslovak delegation if consideration of including
the proposed item in the Agenda were deferred until a paper had been distributed.
The procedure differed from that of accepting items proposed prior to the
opening of the session and it would be wise to follow the fixed procedure for
dealing with new items.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) supported the United Kingdom delegate.
He did not oppose the inclusion of the proposed item, but for formal reasons
preferred to have a paper before adopting it.
Dr. BYSTRICKY disagreed that this was a different case from the
adoption of the agenda items at the previous creating. He feIt that Rule 2
applied no longer since the Contracting Parties were now in plenary session,
In spite of this, he would accept the suggested procedure and would submit a
paper shortly.
The CHAIRMAN thanked Dr. Bystricky and pointed to the provision of
Rule 23 that proposals should "normally" be introduced in writing and in advance
of discussion.
2. Tariff Negotiations (in se far as this item relates to the position of
Uruguay in the Torquay Tariff Negotiations following the recommendations
of theTariff Negotiations Committee) (GATT/TN. 2/23/Rev. 1)
The CHAIRMAN explained that the remainder of item 2 would be taken up when
a report has been received from the Tariff Negotiations Committee on the
instruments f or accession, etc. He recalled that Uruguay had negotiated.
successfully at Annecy and that the Contracting Parties had decided favourably
on the accession of Uruguay. It had not, however, been possible for the
Government of Uruguay to obtain parliamentary approval before the closing date
of signature of the Protocol by acceding governments, The Uruguayan Government
still wished to accede to the General Agreement and had sent a delegation to
Torquay prepared to negotiate with present contracting parties and new
acceding governments. The problem of arranging Uruguay' s accession to the
Agreement had been discussed by the Tariff negotiation Working Party. The
Chairman summarised the recommendations of the Working Party (GATT/TN. 2/23/Rev.1,
pages 2 and 3):
(a) That the Contracting Parties extend the acceptance date of
the Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession so that Uruguay
may accede to the General Agreement under that protocol;
(b) That the final acceptance date of the Annecy protocol by Uruguay
be the same as the final date to be established for signature of
the Torquay Protocol by acceding governments; GATT/CP. 5/SR. 2
(c) That Uruguay be enabled to withdraw or modify certain
concessions negotiated at Annecy, under the provisions of
Article XXVIII; and:
(d) That the Legal Working Party be instructed to modify the draft
Torquay Protocol in accordance with these recommendations.
He explained that it would be necessary to draw up a formal decision for the
case of Uruguay but suggested that the Contracting Parties approve the
recommendations of the Tariff Negotiations Committee in principle at this
meeeting.
Mr. BROWN (United States) proposed that the Contracting Parties approve
the recommendations of the Tariff Negotiations Committee with respect to
Uruguay.
This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN said that a draft decision would be submitted at a later
date.
Mr. LACARTE (Uruguay) thanked the Committee for this action, which was
quite satisfactory to his delegation and removed the last obstacle to the
carrying out of their negotiations. He hoped that it would be possible for his
Government to accept the Annecy Protocol earlier than the date allowed by the
extension of time.
3. A rticle XVIII -Notifications of existing protective measures by
Denmark, Hait and Italy (GATT/CP. 3/403 and GATT/CP/77:
GATT/CP. 3/40, GATT/CP/60 and Add. 1: GATT/CP/3/30/Add/1,d 1
GATT/CPA/49 and dd. 1).
~f 4.
The CHAIRMAN stated thatoexamenation cf those measures required detailed
work of a kind only possible in a smaller group and that the norsal procedure
of the contracting parties was, after a preliminary oiscussion, tc, refer the matter
to a WFrking Party.
MrH DOMINIQUE (Qaiti) said that his Government considered that the
measures conéereidg the r6gio au tabac did not veiolate theem Gneral AgreIent
or affect any other countqy, and conseouently, did not requird the detailel
study of a Working Party.
The CHIIPJAN felt sure that the ContractingdParties woul. consider it
desirable t( subject the Haitian measures to the scrutiny of a WorkingParty,
and give their approval in the light of its report. He hgped the d'le-ate of
Haiti would understand that it was desirable to follaow the customry procedure.
The delegate of Hiiti agreed wAth the Chairman.
The CIAIRIM theW proposed a 'orking Party with the following terms
of reference:
"to examine the measures notified by Denmark, Haiti and Italy in
accrc1.ncewith the provisions of Article XVIII and to report
thoroon to the Contrecting Partios ", and the following membership: GATT/CP. 5/SR. 2
page 4
Canada Italy
Chile Netherlands
Denmark Pakistan
France United Kingdom
Haiti United States
India
This composition was :.-odelled on the Working Party set up at the Third
Session to deal with this matter and with a view to preserving the balance
between the countries of varying degrees of economic development. The
CHAIRMAN proposed as Chairman of the Working Party Mr.Hewitt (Australia)
in his personal capacity, because off his long experience as chairman of the
working party during theThird Session.
Mr. GARClA OLDINI (Chile) explained that he would be unable to take
part in the Working Party and proposed that Cuba replace Chile.
The CHAIRMAN regretted this decision in view of Mr. Garcia Oldini's
experience with Article XVIII.
Sir Stephen .it (United Kingdom ) said that, while not objecting, to
the composition of the Working Party, he did not like the practice whereby
a country which declined nomination to a working party procueded to nominate
another to take its place, nominations should be left to the Contracting
Partice as a whole.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the custom was for the Chair to put forward
the criginal nominations to a working party and the repre.entative of any con-
tracting party was free to propose changes, It would be; incorrect to debar
a country which did not wish to serve on a working party from nominating another.
The composition of the Working, Party, with Cuba substituted for Chile,
and its terms of reference, were approved.
The CHAIRMAN conveyed to the Working Party the request of the delegation
of haiti. that the Haitian measures be taken up first and also the assurances
that had been given by the Contracting Parties to the Italian delegation that
the ltalian measures would not be taken up immediately.
4. South Africa - Southern Rhodesia Customs Union; first Annual Report
of the Custom Union Council
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) thought that the events which had preceded the
submission of this Report were well-known to most of the representatives and
he 'would only add a few explanations. The Southern Africa Customs Union
Council had been in operation for about a year. lts terms of reference were
contained on pages 1 and 2 of the Report. The first undertaking, of the
Council had been to study rats of duty of the two countries which were
divergent at the date of the agreement, an the Council had already sub-
mitted recommendations for the alignment or these rates These recommendations
were receiving the consideration of the two governments and some had already
been agreed in principle. It was hoped to complete this work fairly soon.
The Coucil was also dealing with a number of problems affectings the operation
of the Customs Union Agreement itself which arose from its effects on the
industries of the two countries (see pages 14 - 21 of tao Report). On page 2
would be found an indication of the steps to be taken during the second year
towards the achievement of the general objectives of the Customs Union.
Mr. Steyn wished to emphasise that the Council, although appointed by the
two governments jointly, was an independent advisory body with full freedom
to express its own views in its reports and that, consequently, the views
expressed in this Report were not necessary accepted by either government. GATT/CP.5/SR.2 page 5
Mr. ACPARLANE (Southern Rhodesia) mentioned the reference on page. 26
to the maintenance of restrictions on trade between the two countries and
reported that the relevant information had been supplied to the Council.
He also emphasised the independent nature of the Council. He said he would
be pleased to answer any questions from delegates on the contents of the Report.
Mr.BYSTRIOKY (czechoslovakia) said that these customs union documents
referred to South West Africa as a. territory of the Union of South Africa;
he assured that this related only to customs matters in view of the decision
of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 14 December 1946 that S. V.
Africa should not be incorporated in the union of South Africa and shouldd be
a mandated territory under the Trusteeship Council
The CHAIRMAN said that that was a political question outside the
purview of the Contracting Parties and not relevant to the Customs Union
between the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia.
Mr. Brown (United States) asked two questions: first, whether theC.;
eratps secidiec inetAnnexec;;e eirl eLdyaud en effuce bueweunethuotwi
ccuntries; and, secoydl,, concergin;ethc plao ,f wofrk orethe ncxt lweive
ttsnso ccinadsed oaged^a ,21e hn diod nt seeyanr indication thatetCounciluwi
irtended give,;v ettontioo tC restrictions ohetlh teabc wteteun the two
countriend al hoe wnderedethaeter it was indecacd to pursue this subject.
;rTEYS2MN, (South Africa) replied thate tah rtes eeferrud te e iown:-
in force betweene thu two ncouetrisI Leply ;y toe th e scconde qustion, the
two egnmevrunts consiedder that in thomcczplieatrd task oo micg.nE a Comtc.s
Union it was of first importance to bgin=ethc tariff rates into gnmeErant,
-ndethc Council, in accordanwe ithsit- instructions, tohady pa particular
attention to this. eTho C-uncil haod cdsieerud proposalo fare eliminatiinaon
of restrioti ns between the two countries,anh tney intended famili,.iarise
mhe.selves with such restrictions in erd-r to mur;.elat plans forethuiemru:l.ai
Lr. BWNVJ nUlited States) thanked the South Africandeleglse.. H leopedoi
the worw iluLd orecued with expedioi:n and success, and that inhtie next report
thereo wuld be fuller considar.oi n of the problem of theemt:ovao cf restrictions
in the tredQ between ehuwoo: unwutries.
The AIRMAN sugges etod that eth contracting Pareicmighirt note the
Report which hadeeucn smi2.ietud in accordancwi' tthi de)eclaraoimn of ehz
Contractgnl Pareius of 1M8y a 1949e cxessing,h the hopes just atetud by the
legaeet of the United States.
This wasga;reed.
ConsolidationCnf ScheodCls (GATT,CP. 5/4)
THE CHAIRMAN summarised the suggeston in the document issued by the
Secretariat. The need for this Consolidation, both for the information of
contracting parties and for the public, was very apparent. He hoped it would
be approved.
Mr.MELANDER (Norway ) supported the suggestion. There might be certain
difficultiues of detail and he suggestedl that it might be well to wait until the
Torquay concessions were in force before consolidating the Schedules, which
might perhaps be later than the sixth session.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Contracting Parties might approve the
suggestion in principle and refer it to a working party of composed of customs
experts which would be set up to consider other items in connection with the
schedules.
Mr. HERRERA ARANGO (Cuba) supported the suggestion and proposed that
the Working Party study whether a special column indicating the country with GATT/CP. 5/SR.2
page 6
which each item: was negotiated and also the date of the negotiation,might
be included in the consoridated tex t.
TheCHAIRMAN said that the paint could be considered by. the Working,
Party but there might be some difficulty in that this was .a multilateral
agreement.
Mr.LECUYER(France;) and. Mr. REISHAN (canada.) supported the proposal.
The latter hoped that it could be carried. out very soon. With regard to
the suggestion by the delegate of Cuba, .Mr. Reizvan. felt it would be un-
desirable to include something which .would stress the bilateral rather than
the ...ultilateral character of the Agreement.
The CHAIRMAN thought the Working Party might cosider how to give
effect to . the Cuban proposal without producing the infermation in a public
document.
The suggestio n of the Secretariat. was approvee in principle , the
details to be; left to the Working Pa.rty.
6. Schedule:IX' - Cuba: :Rport on Re-negotiations with the United States
(GAAT/CP/71 and Amend.1 and Add.1 )
Mr.HERAERA ARANGO (Cuba;) expIained that the re-negotiations referred
to under this item .were these approved by the Contracting Parties at their
Second Session (see GATT/CP.2/43 and GATT/CP. 2/SR.25). They incl uded those
tariff items specifically mentioned in the report of the Working. Party on the
Cuban Schedule (GATT/C.2/43. The re-negotiation of' colaured waven textiles
Which had also been proposed at that time, was. deferred and was new under dis-
cussion between Cuba and the United States in thegeneral negotiations on
textiles. Negotiations were completed on 31.May 1950 and notifiedto the
Cont ralcting Parties in document GAAT/CP /71 These changes were only in respect
of the preferential. rates. of duty and none had been initially negotiated with
other contracting parties. Parallel changes were however,made in the most-
favaured -nation rates in order not to increase existins of preference.
X ..-f nrrfarilQ
Cz unse.ior 'ar inoredlaeiawereegranted in a rers;;roar e s. number f ittm:
in. tiogCUeen t-rhfp tallel cur gedai arrwl most-favourede na ro:ftv_ ur.- - ti n
sever,. most- avo red-s onXValef.vwueate. oratis1 vnd cr craron1airiCl in Pr:t I
Oo hc heeneualX Ag ehmen Iould r:r e.. t wc+-'nefeceove ehe -eof it ftht rec
hangesi . Ghe b ;c..:tamthe Culan cus.o .s tarofumenet ut in dcc L.ct
dATI/'CS/n1/Lnor&ob1e. o,iahce reea. . jctiedns any d bn ra.ngi s by contracti
roposed t. thMr.MERRERA ARNGO prPRisJ ,RA t the ;opozed thagt CC ntractinE
isePraish. utfo pot .eonn of.hese chang.1 .' o rcn+eduintI . Scih.ul LX.
,.,ed ?at. S,associated..t'mseh i.wf hit' thiatmec..ont cf the
gate of Cuta t b .
'riorponoc:oico :f theu ests:of ' theerunego-ea,;t ions betweter aubc
anhecUnited Stesu ni schcdile IXuwL aapprovedsl1nd the CHAIRMAN explainydo
that', he'working i Pary i:n hedu^ls woulLd l!etem.ie he C eaxct Methodt
he meeting adjourned a at 1 .m. |
GATT Library | cp630dp2665 | Summary Record of the Second Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 24 February, 1950, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 24, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 24/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.2 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cp630dp2665 | cp630dp2665_90270076.xml | GATT_142 | 1,974 | 12,538 | GENERAL AGREEMENT
ON TARIFFS AND
TRADE
RESTRICTED
ACCORD GENERL SUR LIMITED B
LES TARIFS DOUANIERS GATT/CP.4/SR.2
24 February 1950
ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SECOND MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva, on Friday, 24 February, 1950, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman:,
d s sd.
c ashdi..,
Subjects dicussed .
Hon. :L D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. Distribution of Secret documents.
2. Adoption of Agenda - Document (CP.4/1Rev.2).
3. Notifications-under .ArticleXVIII .
4. Rectification and Modification of
Schedules
5. Application of Annecy, Schedule XIV
(Norway) (GATT/CP.3/84)
1. Distribution of Secret documents
M. LECUYER (France) raised a point of order on the distri-.
bition of Secret documents. He considered that one copy for
each Delegation was not sufficient.
The CHAIRMAN replied that Delegations requiring extra copies
could obtain a limited number from the Secretariat.
2. Action of Agenda -Document CP.4/1 Rev.2
The CHAIRMAN called the attention of the Delegates to item 22,
proposed by the French Government, and originally listed under
"Other Business", and to the three provisionally approved items:
13, 14 and 15, on which the United States had submitted memoranda.
a) Item 13 -Arrangements regular Reporting in accordance with
paragraph 2 of Annex J (GATT/CP.4/15). : : GATT/CP.4/SR.2
Page 2:
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) questioned the advisability of
singling out the arrangements for regular Reporting under Annex J
as the only such arrangements to-be considered. There were
.several other Articles, for instance Article XVI, which :required
reporting. Furthermore,. he wondered whether an investigation such
as was implied under Item 13 would not overburden the Contracting
Parties and the Secretariat.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) agreed that there was a serious
danger of overburdening the Agenda: of the Contracting Parties
with items such as this one, reguiring extensive study and leading
to long and possibly inconclusive discussion. He thought it might
better be omitted. lt a later stage, in the operation of the
General Agreement, there might be occasions..for improving and
broadening its procedure, but to overhurden the Agenda now would
not in his opinion serve the best interests of the;General
Agreement itself. He suggested deferring a.decision on this item
until there had been time to consider the papers more thoroughly.
Mr. GRADY (United States) referring to the question raised
by the New Zealand Delegate, said that the United States would
be glad to have Article XXI added for Consideration.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) questioned. the wisdom of including
this item and items 14 and 15 in the Agenda; but firstly he
wished to verify the fact that they had been placed on the Agenda
in accordance with the rules of procedure, since his Delegation
had not received notice of them before leaving Australia. The
Australian Delegation felt that while it was important to take
up promptly issues.raised as a result of specific grievances,
great care Should be exercised in undertaking comprehensive
studies in the general field of commercial relations, such studies
should not be entered into without careful consideration by the
Contracting Parties.
The CHAIRMAN replied to Mr. WALKER's first point that the
item had been cincluded in the provisional Agenda in accordance
with the rules of procedure. GATT/CP.4/SR.2
Page 3
Mr. GRADY (United States) said that his delegation felt
that these were items of real importance and urged that they.
be retained in the Agenda.
Mr. BOTHA (South Africa) did not think that these items
were of such urgency that they required consideration at this
session.
Mr..COUILLARD (Canada) supported the inclusion of the
items; he could not agree that the Secretariat would be unduly:
overworked as a result and as to the question raised by the
Delegate of New Zealand, the United: tates had already agreed
to the inclusion of Article XVI, and, no doubt, upon investigation,
more provisions would be found to require similar study. He
Suggested amending the wording of Item 13.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that if it were agreed to broaden
the scope of Item 13 the words "and other provisions of the
General Agreement" be added.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) felt that the disscussion:
indisated the. advisability of postponing a decision upon the
inclusion of Item 13. He suggested that the Secretariat might:
prepare a paper showing the practical effects of the adoption of
Item 13 as broadened and a decision :might then be taken.
M. LECUYER (France), while not opposed to broadening the
terms of Item 13, agreed with Mr.HOLMES that such a paper by
the Secretariat would be useful.
Mr. SOHMITT (New Zealand) wished to clarify his statement.
Although he felt that Item 13 should not be aecepted in its
present form as strictly limited to reporting under Annex J,
it was not necessarily his intention to extend the scope of the
item to cover all the provisions of the General Agreement relating
to reporting. He suggested, however, that the Secretariat, in the
preparation of its paper, should cover all possible arrangements
for reporting, regular or otherwise in order that the contracting
Parties might then decide. GATT/CP. 4/SR. 2
page 4
The CHAORMAN said that the Secretariat would prepare a
comprehensive memorandum, and the inclusion:of item 13 in the
Agenda would be considered at a later date.
b) Item l4 - Review of application of Quantitative Restric-
tions on Imports designed to afford Protection to Domestic
Industry (GATT/CP.4/13)
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) felt that the papers issued
in connection with this item and with item 15 required further
study.
It was agreed to postpone consideration of the inclusion
of Items 14 and 15 until item 13 was again taken up.
2. Item 4 - Notification under Article XVIII
1) Notification by Haiti (GATT/CP.3/40)
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that, according to the provisions
of paragraph 12 of Article XVIII the Government of Haiti
should have submitted a full statement of considerations in
support of the measure within 60 days of its becoming a
contracting party, i.e. before March 1. He was informed that
the Haitian representative. had telegraphed his Government to
send an expert on the State monopoly (tobacco, cigars and
cigarettes) to supply the necessary information to the
Contracting Parties. The Chairman suggested that, since
this was a matter requiring detailed examination, it would be
as; well to decide now to refer the question directly to the,
Working Party when it was set up and when the Haitian
representative arrived.
ii) Item 4 Application by Southern Rhodesia concerning
Margarine Factory (SECRET/CP/2).
Mr. WARD (Southern Rhodesia) said that since the factory
was not yet in production the necessary information could not
be provided, nor could it be surely stated at the present time
that the protection would be necessary; he, therefore, wished
to withdraw the application on the understanding that it
could be renewed at a later date if necessary. GATT/CP.4/SR.2
page 5
THE CHAIRMAN said that in that case no further action was
required by the Contracting Parties.
iii) Decision on certain measures notified by Syria and Lebanon.
(GATT/CP.3/60 Rev.1).
The CHAIRMAN recalled that at their Third Session the
Contracting Parties deferred decision on two items in the Syria/
Lebanon application - viz. natural and artificial silk and
hosiery on account of inadequate information. A decision had
been taken on the basis of paragraph 5 (a) of Article XXV
authorizing the maintenance of the measures pending a decision
at this Session. In taking that decision the Contracting Parties
had requested the Governments of Syria and Lebanon to submit,
a statement in support of the measures at least two months before
the date of the opening of the Fourth Session,. if they wished to
maintain the measures. This. requirement had not been complied
with by Syria /Lebanon. It was therefore for the Contracting Parties
to decide what action should now be taken.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that there seemed to be
nothing to refer to a Working Party, and that it appeared that
the item should be deleted from the Agenda and the maintenance
of the measures disallowed.
The CHAIRMAN emphasized that it was necessary for the
Contracting Parties, to take a decision at this Session, and
inquired whether the United Kingdom proposal that the measures
be disallowed by the Contracting Parties was agreed.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) said that although it was quite clear
that Syria/Lebanon had not complied with the directive of the
Contracting Parties, he felt it might be possible to postpone
the decision for a certain time and give the two governments
a further chance to provide the necessary information, or to
explain why they were not able to do so.
The Delegates for CANADA, NEW ZEALAND and the UNITED STATES
supported Mr. HASNIE. GATT/CP .4/SR.2
Page 6:
Mr. HOLMYES (United Kingdom) said that he would agree with
the suggestion of the deolegate of .Pakistan proviided it was made
quito clear in the telegram that, unless the information were
provided, the measure would have to be disallowed at this Session
of the Contracting Parties.
The CHAIRMAN then suggested that the telegram point out the:
failure of the two governments to comply with their ùndertaking
at the Iast Session :.and request that the information be supplied
not later than 24, March, with the understanding that if it were
not supplied by that date the Contrating Partie would assume that
Syria/Lebanon withdrew their application for the approval of these
measures, and the waiver granted in paragraph 5 at the Third Session
would be cancelled.
This was agreed upon and the date was altered to17 March.
The CHAIRMAN said that the setting up of the Working :Party
would, consequently, be deferred.
3. Item 5 - Rectification and :Modification of Schedule.
i) Schedule VI - Ceylon - Report on negotiations.
Consderation of this item was postponed since the
document had not been distributed.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) wished to explain that the nego-
tiations had been concluded within the time set, and the :report
was in the hands of the Secretariat. Its distribution had been
delayed by representations on the pert of one of the Contracting
Parties interested.
ii) Schedule X Czechoslovakia (GATT/CP/27 & Corr .1)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the proposed rectifications had
been handed in at the end of the Annery Conferenne, and that it
had then been proposed that they be considered together with the
Protocol of Rectifications that would be drawn up at this Session.
He consequently suggested that it be referred immediately to the
Working Party.
This was Agreed.
iii) Schedule XV- Pakistan.(GATT/CP/41)
it Was also agreed to refer this to the Working Party directly GATT/CP.4/SR.2
Page 7
iv) Annecy Schedules :GATT/CP.4/3 & Add.1).
In reply to points, raised by Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) and
M. LECUYER (France) the CHAIRMAN said that any new lists of
rectifications would be considered by the Working Party.
In reply to a question by Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) the
CHAIRMAN said that the problem of the numbering of Norwegian
Tariff items should also be referred to this Working, Party.
lt Was agreed to set up a Working Party and: the CHAIRMAN
explained that, since many of the rectifications concerned:
Schedules of Acceding Goverrments, these countries should feel
free to take part in the deliberations of the Working Party.
4. Item7 - Application of Annecy Sheduele XIV (NORWAY)
(GATT/CP.3/84).
Mr. OFTEDAL. (Norway) said that his Government had hoped
that the new Storting would be able to approve application of
their Annecy Schedule before the date of April 30. It, was now
clear, however, that, this would not be possible and it was
necessary for him to request postponement to June 30.
This was agreed, and the CHAIRMAN stated that a formal
decision would be drawn up declaring that the obligation
contained in the Annecy Protocol would be waived in the case of
Norway and the date extended it 30 June. The Secretary General
of the United Nations would also be advised.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) thanked the Contracting Parties.
The meeting adjourned at 12.50 p.m. |
GATT Library | qk501ky6997 | Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England, on Thursday, December 7, 1950, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/12/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.17 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qk501ky6997 | qk501ky6997_90270143.xml | GATT_142 | 4,958 | 31,778 | RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.5/SR.17
TARIFFS AND TRADE 13 December 1950 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torouay, England,
on Thursday, December 7, 1950, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. TONKIN (Australia)
subject discussed: ltem 15 of the Agenda - Arrangements for the Continuing
Administration of the General Agreement (GATT/CP.5/11)
In accordance with rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr. TONKIN
(Australia) was unanimously elected Chairman for this meeting on the proposal
of Mr. Di Nola (Italy), seconded by Mr. Brown (United States).
Item 15- Arrangements for the, Continuing Administration of the
General Agreement ( GATT/CP. 5/11)
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) introduced the proposal of his delegation
concerning arrangements for the continuing, administration of the General Agreement.
The main points of the Canadian proposal were contained in Document
GATT/CP.5/11 which was issued on October 25 and which set out a number of argu-
mente pointing to the advisability and need to make at this time arrangements
for the continuing administraration of the General Agreement. GATT had grown in
the last three years into an important international instrument, and the only
existing inter-governmental forum for the discussion of commeercial policy
questions on a world-wide basis. Membership had grown. There had also been,
as could well be expected, a substantial increase in the number, variety, and
complexity of the questions with which contracting parties had had to deal in
the course of five Sessions. Much of the work done at these Sessions could
have been quite proptrly done between Sessions by a Committee of governmental
representatives, thereby reduocing, the length of the Sessions proper. There was
a real danger that, as a result of increased activity, the periodic sessions of
the CONTRACTING PARTIES would tend to be prolonged to a point where the efficiency
in the administra'tion of the Agreement would suffer and the high-level representation
might be lest. Both developments would be unfortunate.
There was now the added consideration that the President of the United
States, in submitting his legislative program to the next session of the United
States Congress, had announced that the Havana Charter would not be submitted to
Congress for approval at this time (see document CP/84). This decision naturally
increased tremendously the importance of GATT as an international instrument in
the commercial policy field. Up to now, the CONTRACTING PARTIES had assued that
the majority of the functions of GATT be taken over by the International
Trade organization. It was new known that this would not happen at least for
some time to come.-' U, ;);.vt
Delegation' therefore, hoped that it was sufficiently 2).;Lz_ th; :3uffici'...nt2.y
eleONTRATING PARTIES should be established to con-iYJ be; e' r;hi. to c'c'n
ING PARTIES on a continuous basis and that this question of p
iettiikl gue't.q:i. sucha. tre n-.eDefa''leda.Cqx.sons it;,:ts'.h-7ra
refe'i'ei~srule A' pI'cc.ure, c rence, -tiomposion,mand .l o C'cL"'L
i:pcrtntn. 3ut tliy should bh 3ubox'inxo tan Bd tiheld not,-at:est trd'quasedion
f prinoipie, nai:ly thiL bC;...itt.'o bCetcpl He mu-gest;;d: ths,'me comm iee2t
V;ton Fabe' s-abishe at the' Workcoclusiong of thPis CiscusSeici to c(nsider sLLC
quetiosx 'fdtail -s hue i'. lsted, d othe sr releovant mattersa i-icd ta'. GATT/CP.5/SR.17
page 2
this Working Party would make recommendations on these questions to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES Which could be acted upon by them before the conclusion
of the present Session. In the event that this was not possible, his
Delegation considered that the CONTRACTING PARTIES should at this Sessions.iLrcn
ee. The Contracting Parties could then at their ne
LALU 0. .L d, 1 ibmade it a resul
i U C ½ 1tMr. cOUILLARD wished to amplify brinadian views
nu.. .Lcr :2 - mber of the questions to which he had alluded and toh thead
b vr, -Working Party might addre
.e~~t^. .(a) The name to be given to the Committee: his Delegationcn P .xtj U L",i n;
mitte, but had no strong views. LIt would .'Ifact . it in ii. f
e to call it Cibtubyubg ir Steering Committee. * raitt l
erence of the proposed Steering Committee: ; e mostGntu.:i C th o':t!! '
s that the CONTRACTING PARTIES If i J Ds i Z L!;. C t1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Il-IL 'E' C i 1 T_ AR
i. ^ at . A n iriV Z) C LIZ th; Cjr i1 J1 in ILS
2.fl Flunars iect in5'bi-; W rja in t it sov(uroi...r - :,: GrATT. In
(t t) 'l'r,,. v - > orcifs.~ tl~u ;-.-'f'' continue to . thu
ca ip1.r-c . r .Uisaocv:w. ; I .uL actons. o f h Sttuurin,.
ss f) ', StZ fC. )Ii J 'RA G~tTIL t," d * d s t- -'iU- ", Cl ', it
certain dutitL:! t.; tSt4rin; 0.. - t insuru thu .ore
f iliCfibl. C Xra of, GATT. On t- inhr hanCl it Shou.. bQ
... uclea. thot tr C &tj .- .,..isu, iniU ?urf uicu. o.
rftu 'utius.u L) r-i ia tCi. , It; Ci~9lCG TQi:Lt 2 tJ hC
\'a-.-..:i; an EIctt~,: .i~ i.~u.wr ir lctiil thu typu Ii diticc-
.-nlii on ~jc: 1 :xlvur: t .riJ.'aL bQ . :ssi;, nu -C-. ittc~
ai rich t,1 0tct..n, CC. . c:. Caitu'rt*aku at'.'n x-
. 9. r(c ..> .Uri.i.'ttitr1 C).uJ'l~~j".'Ji(z S.
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(c.> ) u-'i.,,r7:. a .it.... 'i''' 'j;'":. | G t.aal Di.iu-tiol
'1 i F _ u 'r1 -. attuu 1 ' '.V9 h.' .; t'.I w I Tnr
aao n,; -r I:;.9t.Cli~iJt;h.r± r; s:.....t~tuc. t;: L..;rc,. t t al iun~c.1i
Iould L. (bi. r.-.su i1 ruin aJ S, rcsul 1u thlu .l'rnt"" .ich
;, X.L(.L .accra--at- tf¢:~u.La;i:;i 1rith vit, -+ ;-ia; ve)uicl$tji1l
(.'kll'~eki'l4 :'.i~n ,; ...;S,; f- r,/ i-i . ;.Ct; s ru-Trltati,>rl ;!n
Wi l~t7,r. i; CO 3sS t) .- ;). * Cr Ut..- u o' thu bo t; _
i.'i.l' .i. ir..u;<r;;' - *.r', '. (iij Ya
'uRU X x,<'p,, i i i...l .ii.;x-au..Ui..l, bs'''i2 v nct
6J!_ 2 C.C. (L...it' "'.!;1 '.lt' rts.- i. C!DIj..iOc *.if'2'w
';;a~tdiJ.i. thuL; ...b..c. .',ur i'm Ei LXGA.CY'f ont ym a2.'
t t_ I; . i1', ,.~u ut. i L..Lr*t 0.4 ti4 - 1. . -. it ."istabl
t c t.'~ t. ur.. t,'. U ., * u., t .'
(K i;Lu(.;` L v bi.t I ul O tt r3i u. .-.i i t' ..r iirscU :ujOL Ct.l(,i
1' 3 ' . p''C ,'I4Jtb ,, ,'wx' ! rl . t w( !f ir. .' .t i hu' COi'.,.fhAGU i hiG
9.: i..}. 9..... Uts,, ' L....... \1 .,i -;''l.: ii-.f- RU'tl],9 cXL".:1
7 tI..Jb. !? ji Y )L..L. .'.. if ..t................ ,i~'(.: o . u.-tQ; 'ra Go..l EiL. 9 i ttu . ,l1
(9i.i.) . t.9.i * :; P C.t.. i.J t.a.2t.,7-rl .iA t..u au'l t 9.( ..it, )'tj Cwt.'i rt b!
tat.. W. .... nt.1. -" '-tri . t; .. ..c............... th c~' ... un, ...' ,'thu~ :.jc. rit,.' ,-'2
ta."tin, I ';1 s.i ¶1 a L' *oaJ.i '.1 tI. .z c''ritrc'.cin;l, i :hictii
;;~ wit,.. nG Crri ..... '-1 t~ '' :1. ,tt~'.''; uri'oCo.. .. _,jU.h 'Lu. 1,' iI'.rtWiL~tU, GATT/CP.5/SR.17
however, if discussions on the site should becloud the question
of principle, namely the decision by the CONTRACTING PARTIES that
a Steering Committee be set up.
It would also be unfortunate that there should not be raised at
this time the question of Article XXIX, concerning the non-entry into force of
the Havana Charter.
There were undoubtedly a number of other factors involved it in this
proposal to which other speakers would refer and the examination of all relevant
factors would be the first responsibility of any working party setupOt'eLdalU
with the question of continuindmiOLenrat-oticn. Onm :ore, fac,oro everh~r, was
of sufficienmt iporcenoc to warrant attent on, by- thmeetin, although ,almtghi~,t
be teo carly at this gtaue toe a aeblo t discuss it in adety t.il, He. eef rred
to the need fooms ereexpansion of he. exisiginL Secretariat. Te wc~;a s mli.it
to thm a:ount of work ndc responsibilities that, could se ahoulde ed. by gr r oup
am s.all asetho sxingironeo aed,,n he tghouht that thxecEXcutivSecr LetawouldOU:
probably wish mo : ke( proposals onethu question ef cndaaginE the SecretariAt
eftue hod au. taken eotu of trecommcoat~eondin of hed aC oc, Working Party which
hu hoped ld .L` be established eo mxa:ine theme .atters.
4r. WNOXI (United States) s id. that hiel gatJ.tioel wmed tcithe
Canadian proposal. The seop of theneerlrai egmrueent and he( plemicns fagin;
tCe uontracgina Parties hed extendoh mkelvesSus so thatme -.nkimd oefmare annt
ar-an was necessary. The need for ammo.-eetu, such as proposed by the adnrniar
egltc aion was fhetlerp emiassed by thn ornOumee-.nt which had bema i.de tday,
eofoe, in Washington (an ' ciceulaed eas AATT/CP866), egFarding teu position
of the United Staeusg;oeurme:nt towadrs the Havana Chareor.T'hisa=no-unement em~-
phasised the mLporan-eu the United States attached t - tlhe General g~eem;ent and to
ethids &ofm~aking it effective n-d workable. hei United Staeu sdl-geaitno was in
e,ecral accord with the various, pointsma~ed by the Canadian eldgJation. He eQ-
ecrrd, amopg otthers, to, the mpoortance of m aintainign the principleof t eh
sovr eigaty of theCGontractigmPFarties wroikg nas agirou,. the fact that
cisions and ccnsoltationim s ad occurred in ;emiestins -where all ohe countries
woree r presueted was one reason)wht tye, t nCracting Parties hdboae-n so effective.
Thu oe suggestionsegardinf ghcthe.com o itionof the Steurenh g .Commit eandO the
principle that all contracting particm.es ul obed ab"e to attend' a OsserverS
and be heard were soul-d F.naIly, it wesatine- hat the" s cretariat should
bcaeecomecin t the secretari.taof theco Ccont.a tn Paries., Many practaJ.l
questions, would arise on the functions and methods of the proposed Steering Com-
mittee and he supported the suggestion that a Working Party be set up to examine
the problems in detail. He suggested that it would be advisable for the Working
Party first to examine the general character of the Committee, its nature, functions
and composition, a h r rte thaato mtea.ope ttb-i hedsadstli e eterms of eee e cs: rfrne
marize, the UT:zed,S thee de egation felt that ump ~mentation f hil~eiaif
n orfptsalhecould only strengthen akdCbaneaimpoc: e e Ag mertr n if tcnriealk-re:.en
andir DRO1l pe' t,st theosedtresscus2; onme spAcificl rc;Lut inl o.o- e~i
rUh:a~.enlon Commast e to be settii.ekind .Ac itetoh tup
poPI-1 1FhacCanadian iroposal. - tificationt~., UC1f rpOO.Rii
er seemed aChrtc~r se.9d oayed t furt the interval the organis-nltexal O ora1-
o,,ti,:was operating should be given the means to work more:an Vr, ce
efle t ivel. HiUwauove all on reinforcing the secretariat which hc
en the means and the opportunity to do preparatory work for ~.pi n ra '
o agreed as to the need for a perment committee between sessions, bQ ju,;re"i'a
hed it to be particularly clear that such a committee should not]Lt t k.C E5-1 , I it
e any decisions. GHeenvisaged the proposal committee rather02:tL~ ~
party with general and continuous functions in the prepara-ory n h iL1r'*
the sessions of the Contracting Parties, keeping contact amongleii otalteb
arties, conciliation, compilation of material for meetings, etc or . eecr tc.
suggeston to aphe u.~:utorking ppoint o study the question.Jc te ULocti
Party would not be able to arrive at any decisions before the endizisi~ois beXf:ihe e-,i
of this Sessio , but certai ly me thel 6thhould be taken.action slic-uld be c ai Mr. MACRARLAIS (Southern Rhodesia), Speaking generally and without_CL,_L
g to refer to the details of the question, welcomed the Canadaian proposal.op:xJ.
ferred a steering rather than executive committee,a nd thought that it wouldt it 1
useful to have the work of regular sessions of Contracting Partiestrv-.ct Rxart iu
ratory work on the Agenda. Furthermore, is some Another items were t.~ a
d before sessions, it would be easier for small delegations to re- c&I.,t, i.:is -
structions and delays which haad in the past occurred for lack of1` t st c urro lac2. ."
hus be obviated. He was in favour of a maximum of 1u viCo. inl 1.aV ..i.U a2
membership, at least in the case of the smaller countries, i t hk~ s: ciir c u ntr,
supported the suggesion that ample notice should be tnu C'EI n.L X.tio LujU I
servers should be invited. In this connection, the t b .: . ,C ru2 S iav ita is- c ,-n; lccd tior. t
as to the committee.-ioJ2 b~~. ~nv~.nacnt t.: ;zu'vr as VLL astoth _Cn b.itu
l Agreement ;L lar~~4.
rties meetings and the danger of a lowering- .evti 1ni t hu C'n ur tf a
tation. He aagreed with the French representative that ~ ~~: 22ue.& wit~~~~~~~~ the:x'uscintativo that~~~~~~~~~r,. ~I I'
for the sessions. bt.; fuct:n. shuW ut. Srrx~ uwr L' h tu i "U-
be assigne.~, ~u~sc~a'..o: .~unt Ln p' bit thu un tlfc rfulu --iiiisor
aucaijw.i 11; LU.I.
-. n. itIj L Lcutuapxoai f n, uii
on, this JL up I a I"kJ' .. S. uu.u l*u .flt tL~ 1 .U-L..J. U9½
in er~or I ave. ;'ovux'n: ~ * ~i. uLI r Cl nLu j.~ L1 r~ttuAs calw i~u ii..."C:; C.
it ~~~ £t i~~~~i~~u b~U bifcl :m~xcu %7inc p'incr i t u l.~.n9~ o.i
L~r ic i-nic.d b ~ uc~ut :i~ .± t -b1c:. 1t uWj&~f'uttp
AU f t II tilt, .1L-!Z:. .L'G 20. .2.2. ao U rUu..ft
It "t b IuL; atUn J>.vCx:.Ld ih.:Iit r tprincdpic. . w
prvio a~~c~rj. and :.!C'Iuuit prucu..r's -:c f tnu j r rvp~~~~~ninati. 0± .u J u'n.the. i i vanr
A~ruonunt .- C. flu'. and suif cen~aw~U LI 4Ct s si Ex `1 t .,ht*i. oi
or~~re.£uj. tte.nti'i Uati~- th p1v.: as t. u x_,~1,'uu--i(1i! .e n **jta ~n~h:.
i~~arx~c ::....~~x'ciai pLJ.-DULI t.C L ttu Jt: it Li rh u*tn ~h.. iJ ~
.but '<iu~~~~~~~~ tn % th
tc L.r '.ul -.ttctuii'- u_. Xtui:...u2t. .:.t ±010 uf i (.;I-It :.1 'i .tt flu...
II `2. ai Wc-± , c.....; c1 4'.LrvOC3 iy~ xu~at' te tu..
uawi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V
whiclk w'e... .:LJ.Sn th(. OL:'u .u :2..vi'Jawrciaj'tt ~
aL 01 .Whol. ,y 2 iaau :ov(a.:nt unts. miJ;di wih ito 1 it. 2uJo UII iii ,Gt to
iU;.at .2. tIhu or~. lack ofi bch.m
U
light of the new situation.lu ~r.c....± r;±*,~r~i~~t~ would be neeudedt. Spoakinr~ as a doc;.,'atu, he' wvished. to~ s.,c',, t:Uh&-Ub Whatever.
the fato of thu Havanla Chartezr-, tui-i CGneral Agrou-:ient wa,--s at an~! rate~ in
exiS~tence and it was apparent that it c :;ujld not con1tinlue w.-ithOut sc'-Lan
of perfa et oiitee'The rnood for ntrseanj.. hni adbeecn
f elt since Annecy andl he, hpoood' that any s tuci~ undertaken b-. La ;.ri~ia
at~, this session viould~L be pushed a:,s far as ossible, in -rder t y conurt
so:..c- idea.., of the termo of r'ef(rmnce, sco-pe andCI d.Ur-ation, of such a c:.ite
li areod with M . Philip th-at th o:ite : stablishedc c,'l nolyhv
functions of a general nar.ture; althcu,-, - these f unct ions .it alter at a latter
(da~teC. HoweverV~ , he fear D to littic initiative rat,.he.r tha-a± to.:) t.-uch =oiLd cnil-
silrdit essentiald that tilt UCa:-zittee and the Secretariat shul-d be ai-ven
sufficient initiative, to-. vatch over th plcto fteAgeUint ne u
the Agroeaentto r~iako investigations, a).nLd' also to prepared and assist in the c- rk
scx' sss-ions of' thu ConltractinL Parti"S. 71e( did notA believe that sussi:on's )-a
tfnu Crnt-ractlih- Parties could be .:a-tcria1L s~hortened_1 in any cas6e, bu-L' thce.y wo.-uld-
at least be better prepared.L he a.: LLrk.;d that.' tUhe o.; te should hrve- no
ahthority to take decisions because decisions clearly3 rested withl the Contractini;.
Parties. If this principle were not radhered to thee would be~ suspicion
conitractingc parties who. were, not ±.o.br fthe ce:;ziittoeu In s-pecial cases, .w
e~,ver, ::r in eoergncisthu Co;. itteccsol have, the power tc';:k reco._..ainda1~-L
tions or. tak-e action of a.,n inteQri..: character.
lvi. DI NOLA (Iay gedthat the, C~anradian prcpDsa4.1 ca`..:e aLt anf
o~pportune ti.ie. I t was neccssa~-ry to reinforce thc; ContractinE Part~ies, which
were groving in ii.iportmicu and findin:r. thc;.-.selve.S facod w,-ith difficult pr:;blets
He; acurved that the. power of decision should rest with the Co:ntracting~,. Parties
and thaut the cooito should', be a tuygroup t. preiopare th(u w;ork for se.ssio.-ns
of the 6Qntractinp Parties. If this wore not tho case. ai profounld _i-odi~ficati :-n,
.ini the structure of the Arentoudbe involved. I-l fauvouredt the- LeStabli--h-
.oent of' a working part%: to con.1-sider the practical1 and` Cu devaa1tea aspe-,cts :f the
proble:..~. The- Ccanadlian jproposalt Spec ifidrlly include:-d Articles XIto X'1Y eani XVI lI
within thie i-lnlanto of tl'w Co:ii.yitteec and reference u ih perhaps be ;,,a(Ic to' zther
.provisions. The Articles roferred." t'o h in co onthat they providedz- f o:r
consult-ationls and enquiries before a-- decis'o ol boe arrived at, but that~ an~1
decision -was of cour' or the Gontractingl Plartiejs to take. With regard vLI to th1
questio-n of site., he hoped the. viorking party wol ive ro cnieato ;
the ijrosunt site, of the -5ceait oriual sil~ygvronshdper: ira,-
nt.nt repre~sent-atives in G~ncva,~. leic ee that;. thkz C.::Nte sl be s: iau.
on a;.7.nd suggec,, ;s t ud. tha t ,in addition11 to the. criterit! set up 10y the.. Cana'diandem
gatzin, countries with a special. typ--c of econ,.; ±,.y should'as be ereete
He. surpported the idea that anmy decision :-n this : atrshould be Postp.oe.id tO.
thec next se~ssio--n.
~i.TPONCOLC) (Do. Ainicran Rc-public) saidL th!%t hrish loles'a,-ti.on .ec..
'the aaaa propOusal-. A'ne.:tsf.'r c-Aitinuin~'. 1iisrio'.e lcuou
n-A ':njbecausec of the present nuaibur .cf c'ntra-ctingp par7t icS and1 tile Var-1iet~` .
problu:_:s befo.)rv the:,.,, but"as because of thej px-babie ra1ccession .A' ne.countries.~
The l~o..:iicaii Deleaticni -v;uld` supp-rit trie. p1ro.p)sal ' t in 'm tO 'uid
VILs ;,ratificd by the rciorxrhs tA, the( Caada ).ep~ruse.ntativc which broadened th
basis for the Te:brsi . theQ cortte s set f`.'rtL in the Proposel Sub-aitt~-.d
L his I~l;ain t was, i;.iprtaint t~hrt in settin.- forth the criteria -.3.
..i.:.ersig~in theCi~.it'w u rep"aid'niu be ! ivn to the diifTerent tw'
of cooxiesandderee L S cn~i 11UV~L-1p1e~Ult in the diff r 1nt Co-Unt rJ.uZ.
Li' Ch (Aitstv.-Jia-) sca~id that theC CR-taIiPrties \veur: f"ace;'
withan ri ipoi',)trnt dec.:i v-.i nj :.~'Lde 'the(_ 1.o-re Io theU-1 tdScie nrrne ei
regrdi tieliunational Tra"LO Jgrisvti. Tile first react ion ) 'ih
dlgtion had-' been to wel1oc .e, the CalUWdiarl1 prq p-'sa-iL tlith:oujIl thV.y oul want
,ioru' tijLe than allowedf by this SCSSIirn to stud(.' it. He sha.red the vies f,
ohtfl, syeaker's as to3 the functions of triod pvt~p. ,sudco.:it Tile~ rrrinciplc
tha,-t theo Co:ntract inL~ Partics should~ pr~.surwe f:.'.r the. Lselves thL ri:;hit to. taico~'
decisions wras cons idurud of egruat iv-portrncQ by t~he Austraiiani I vrmet
The attitudets of 'the( var'iOUSS govomriuonts would be aff'oct.;e byr the e.xa-ct fun"ctionXs,
of this Ciaite.whichl- it was not possible at this stare to foresee, nior dUid GA.TT/CP. 5/17
p 6
di - he thiink, that there; wias tine a:.t the present :ti{.to stuuc2& the deta.ls
-f thL-sL. fun-ctions. Hce swu.-,est d that it -Ai~ht be~ hel-pful for the ~Ocntract in'..
PartiEs to decided njoi to se~t up an interim., andt rrryntrssin'
work-in,-, party an-d in the lir~ht of its expteriance they c uld btte judge"~ the
viork such a co~to-coLd~i pror The~re ..iht be certain itu.-:s left *::ver
fra.: this session andL certain ?reprtin frth thLssio which co ul be
rei--L'rr(ed t o i -.
441r. .AlaAD, (Pak iSt'.all) Supioorte' the uann-.:aan Lr~oa.in 1pri~nciXLe.
Thee wre; of cor~Ise :.iany intricate; :.:ttrs Lfdeail. leaLr.;reed with the
pr-hicji~ls set f.Drth as toD tlhe coz~.position of the -cztearid thew piint
i.~cteby he taiarr representatives should also be- b-orne in Yixin&. I a
-p.Drt,,urt thai -t- c quELi repre seC-n t at ion should be provided~ for the undcr-aevelopLed
c I t r J LS The term--s of refk~rcnce- vr-ould have to.~ be carefully- drafted so) as
no,-t to d-.etract from the sovcrcigznt-y. of; thli uontractin;~, Parties, a-nd there were
othr Lnporxtant i.zatters to, be considered toge-the ihteiplctoso h
p sic. stato.en ade by th"e Unitea' Strates. In v ie ofv this, hel sup-pcrtuc] the_
initeLrC' urst~ th~at rLan P'rty be; sut up nowr to) ivw the -:at ter
pre IL~iin,-wry c ons ide1;rat'Uio--n but totn ', ;.xcis n be; take-n until theu 6th Sc~ssiorl.
In th~, interval be.forer the openan:: 'r.te of' the 6th Sussicn, it should bc; opun t-
c.-ttract-in., -partius to: sub.-..it any -r~-o~sals .;hichi could. thenLn be, stuzd.ied_ at the:
6th U ''r het co,-uld not, sumpjrt -,,C suw,;cstiorn ;izaCLL b; the~ &ustralian rceLrL,
serit~'... A. Ir an *fer~.;ental ter sessi I. coit t L to-- be se t uL rA;
ilr. ?QkP~L'3Li L~ox~a1) was infavour o,:f the 3proposed c o..a i tt'LI
w~~iicn thow~t ;;culU. Strnthrth Ajre:oen.t aid helip to-- avoid lon,-- sesicns
mof tneu U':ntractin.: PartieS. hE' di.i. notA wish to .;in to details at this time
bu~t it; _See._d t.-. hLm cle~ar nr:atn no _atter hataname wa ivgivn to theco~.ite
ti. owx cf4 _taso z.w..t ava~ys rest %wituh th 1(3~Contractin- Pa1rtie;s. in an;'case
:.nyv c::m-.ittee,~ that was sut ar, should have sufficient iniitiativu t.; be effective,
Xr its~ est-ablishmeiLnt X/OttL. hardly be ;wrtii %jhilLe. His GvurniL.e~nt w-as . uhinter-
estod in t:±e Unite~d States stt.etad rerete te decision no to, re b. ~it
it attach to then.- iic : h'.~atr ic the e' scf..±Dr not c qiate rt;ai.1ct
o.f etj~tablisriinr the Tnterntiona rade. 0r aniatio, th reera1 k~~r e.int shoul
be IteztinDb" adding- certain ofT thechrter Ar~ticltes in the. iannrwar ay
S L g t ari~ at this:,"d Ss i.si,,bo the el CLJta il,0 hie vas wLln
to LqAm- rt the; caainpoos~but wihdto .ia it clear that his t-govverQn:eit
co,'U.LC n1rt' aIcctpt thek Gene1r-al Agruon s a per..u,:nen rag.nt tini its, preCsen1-t
fr.
Mr. Bl'ikiR 3U:.!C (Uczchosl )-"-~va..kial) fel!t tiatt ti~huc.Ktnc.f hCa*-n
ioroposai w':Lui bea v:Ate of *Jitrut f-r thed,.. -xcutive; dcretar~/ antiL his~ staff.
it 710 trim L~Sxcutivu Se;retr:' k.ns trusted, %w.ithi the rUm-initl in * h
G~eneral Aree~.Lunt~arid yt i., tha-vt vient beodthe Ilmits ox;' tlhue aKII.4inisturation1
01 thrm AS DCkL.. .Unt7'Ld 21 t.tt C.;Titi.0ctuinrv Ba-.rtie~s wee ferii, some
aUthr J ro~f fcutis h Con~tractln, Partic:2, -mwe ir wre n:ot
able t. c1- a:,fer and auth- .x'Iit~y, SinICe they wre" neither' a lu~ <1pfo-i; o n
intcvsnL-Ainal inst-ittitt.ii an L'd-.1 ;nl, t po;. to act jointly n in sluecific
cases zcecrc~n, t.; the~ prvsin ,f thec GenralAcr:.ert Wi was a- uti
lateral a~ree; ~cnt ratherth--i a hoytha-t co,'l.I establish -Ather budlies, C.flu. eve
the j~flt(;1 :~rd~mal nt' :cc'i.wsc njrt!Arwe in I.,o 'it (A.'CP 730/hey. 1 ,~aV,
auth ~ri~t; of any f:)r the s bihi.n 'A ' an Ahex thaLn an adC' hoc
;oIittuee clr ' rn.party. Li:c'r sn it . L'-is j~iD t12,-.t delcfy' .tirons
t.' taC c.:ntractins~ Partie:( .'C ies.~r'i tr' S.11' a b !d&' src: eei b-,
;1.2J.OL~L.OX '11L tnt the'i Unite~d btate PGS aware £ t-is2. fact r.lte eeCe7i,
.½. IJ~i'i1P~iJL(Pinltmn&) wolco:...e& and sub :'te. the Cc iaal~iarin cuoi
1w4art iculdxL.Y in vie-a of tn(e bUitu:_ S:tates st'atQe:~1ent. lHe sulJu~rtod- the French
represurntativke ard ther spekr ocrin- h uci n n ;ouition ::f' the; GCATh2/CP. 5 /SRI i7
pa'.Ju 7
the,, p)rCopos,. d co iittou, an.d particularly the dlistribution of izi;..burship a..on: thL
si:iall r nations.
Dr. DiHOFF (Ge-r;ay) sai. that the Canadian proposal rn ro-
visio)n 7r aCCcodinZ, &ovurlnziuntg znd sug6!-8sted that for the1 latter half f l95
o neu or twov seats shouldC be res iv d for the;:. lel attached' ,reat iportance t :
the fact that contracting partic's -which .were not . ieerS of thle Cozittuo sh.-;Uic:
bQ Lraltodl the right to be represunt CCL b; ooservurs . and proose that the, x ouJ..
be? specifically invited t- attend if it;s If' sub-stantial interst t'I- thc._-s.ru
boing discusSedL. I-Il; was in guneral in favour .:f the c;nadian prCposal.
MIir. GUL';!UA (Cuba'.) wias in ftavour in principle ,of thu Cana:ian ;or-
posal, subject to certain qualifications, ..iost Of wrhichi had alrcady, bcen .nti~
b,y other ope.akerS. His doloe,ation %as eull aware .f th, nee{d for such . U'i.L.;itt.;C
in vice of.. thu c.-iplicated nature of the Agreecdnt mnd the. problcv1.s bcforG thu
ContractinEL Parties. The cuesticn of' thle p;wurm that would be versted; in sucjh a
o.-Laiitteu; Was of particular LijportancQ, as was also the question o~f -`A!quatc
ruprusyllntati.on on a,. gu-iegratlghical and hcoo;Jc reeVlop.nt basis. There sh.oud
bo a clear distinction betweeon the Secretaria-it of the.; uolmtrractin,, PartiS sand
thle sto-ndinc, co:.±.:itteu. ho ref'lectin ;as intejniduiu l :n the ;taff o,£f thk
Sc creotari.t w hich -w; u continue its aci:L.,inistrative ;v-0 rk as a-t mrsunt . Tilht
stL'L lo'a , c-.ia.1ittcc shictuld bu of thu nature f .fL a rki, p rty :.ria tzakc up an
J..Atters as they a;roseu ,iscuss: Lrobie^s and ;.iale reports tc the scssion,,.-. lis
t the qet'_tion (ofC powerS, it was clear thiat the lovier :i' Cecision ld r..aan
iith the Contracting Parties. J:yuriunce IhWed~ I'1OWCVur, tIht thu recc:: undat ions
;.ia,,'o by .'. a working party carried8. :.iuch wei:-hit when thu .Ltatter was being, cliscuFs,-uc' ln
the Contracting, PaIrtips, anl even if fuil powers w iere nt vuotuec in thu stnclini
co;. .ittec,;.g it would in effect havc great inlluence in dtc-eriininir the CCiSi*D23 o
tlie uontractinm, P:artius. Careful safegufarus shoul.l be ost:.lishe 1 ?, c a which
s;ho-uldt be thu rif3ht .)f' the countries whose ,problQ;.zs vwereo buill. *, Lt Eiitl to beu
p.)resent-. It should be coade cIlear t Lt, in1 acL.!.iti-n t the right u C untriuS.
had x t.. attend Lietings as observers, the Co~.o.ittCt.; wV olCl.l beJ 61.i iu t; invite
any c7-)untr : ateurially interested` in a dliscussi. .n pit.ce. ie c1 lid cat-.
tention1 t.. frtic~lc f80, a¢.r.a.grraph 4) ofI th(e Hlavana (charter, which provid'eL t'hla.t
i~lnvit..ti.:on,-; sho-uld be issuedL to) an!y 1.Gcx:_r ' itlhe Internatin;xlmi Tr-ad.(.1e Ors, is:.::ti .n
not cA"...ber rf th(e; ,-xecutivc Board. viicn any lljruttCr Cof particula.Xr and sbstantil
cneem.' t-b th iat C Sr wasJ be is caus' fthe ;tfi reat T;,r-i.ht-, CarriCJdL
by the reco:zu.encati.ons of :.my w:orkin part`, rt .o suchk prvioi:i shld, b9e i-'L brte
concernin,;', theC p~roposeCd_ Ce.a.LAttu. ',;ith regaril t;., thec rearic by the CZech-slSv.k
2uepr e(toIL,.JiVU, it was obvi.,us thJt, in .order t: a: rcut the: CSt.esta'clish>:..n.tL f
such a CccL..ttC~, iwthoritv fro. o , ontS '-: u±l Lu nucssary. ;'vith r'..jard t
the Australin lproposal. concerrnin un euri:±untal C. !ittee to : s -et up i:.-
:.eLItuly, he aLgrcedL Ywith tJh c'Iooc:xti:i' of te' )fCF i. I Pa-kistan.
ifr. G.ACs. CU.LD; (Chile) said tha--t, wh- tiz p :.oal had t beCn
prusuntud, his (1(eial-ti;n hld consideredl it ikit:h re: ' care . i' h_ recc;-nt Ulnted
Sta;'.tes dGecl.aration .)f potli.Cy\ wzitth ruuarcl to thlel I Cvhartzr !a. is., h.wv<a:,
Co plete.~ alteredod. tIhc a;SpCct of thu aatte Until thec; present tieC, it, lira.
been tie: funcida eniutal care ;f elegations to s ' d the taclcit eCxistlencl; n'f
thu Charter and thure had btrleen confidlencu that tIu UhUrter wui& evente. 'l b
rcatifiud andl the Internaticnaul Trade_-. Or;rganisat;i n estalisled, with all its
careful ecquilibriwu. between the interests .f the iruat industrial C'runltlVies an
the wulr -dveloped C>unltruies. This h.o)e had-l now rudeuled illt) tile rM: k.)te
distance. Consqcluently, any proposed strelng-theninc :-' the &ArQe-;.Llt x;.:,u 1now
hlave to) bu scrutinized iii thue li ht of the United S43tAtu deciartiori. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 17
Page 8
All the things th.t contracting parties had hitherto avoided doing in order
nct to jeopardise tzie Havana Charter they now, should do. The General
Agreement rwas3 not sufficient-for the undcr-developed countries and sooner
or later certain provisions of the Charter ,would have to be brought into
force. He vwas thinking in particular of provisions such as those in Article
32, Chapter VI, Article 15, certain Articl. s of Chapter 2. If such matters
should not be irnmediatply discussed by the v;'rrking party to be set up, they
should at least bes borne in mind. At some ,ecj.kt.o time, attention -.ould
have to 're given to the under-devlc; ed countries. As to the character to
be given to the Canadian pro-posal, he fe-ared the danger of slipping into a
delegation of covers. At Annecy, .whn th_ question of inter-sessional
machinery W.?s discuss-dwith regard to procedures for Article XI to XIV and
XVIII, there w,,as a considerable s-.ruggle to prevent a text which would have
involved a delegation of po-wers and ysrhaps the struggle had not beon entirely
successful. Th-- orking Party should give reful consideration to this
matter. Furthermore, the n.- CJ-" -owcrkingr 'arty for such a committee was not
w.-ithout danger. During a session workingg partiess were under constant
scrutiny of the Contrac-ting Parties anrd had al-.-iays the possibility cf re-
course to the Contract-in Parties whtnEver thvre ras a question of inter-
pretation or of terns of references. This cc-rd-tte . ould be both isolated
and n-early autonomous. In addition, whn its work -..as brought be-fore the
Conti-acting Parties, tiatre. wou. bc a t'L.~ncy to coniLder that all the
ncc-ssaryywork had b en done. It se-md to him that it should be clearly
established thot its function= weuld be silnmply of a preparatory nature for
regular sessions of the Contreztirn Parties. The Contracting Parties would
then% work on the material rsr nted to them-ii through the ordinary -working
party machinery. It would bo pruident alo to limit the duration of this
aonmnittee as w-ell as its coetenc in order thaELt its usefulness could be re-
-nwe... r^..fter a certain period. As to tile uesticn of site, he agreed writh
the Italian re-resentati. that Gen-Va would b' preferable. H_ particularly
dr.; the attention of the Contracting Parties, to the fact that the task of
the W70orking Party -:was a. delicate on- and r;queotnd it to pOay careful attention
to details and shades of m aniinj. 'his proposal, w-:ith its evident da .-ers
and lc -;s vident benefits, woulu b_ otb. rvise difficult of acceptance uy
governmentts.
The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m, |
GATT Library | rv421fv6182 | Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, March 21st 1950 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 31, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 31/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.17 and GATT/CP.4/SR.14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rv421fv6182 | rv421fv6182_90270105.xml | GATT_142 | 2,976 | 18,811 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/C.4/SR.17 31 March 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, March 21st 1950 at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. Wilgress
Subjects Discussed:
1. Notifications under Article XVIII - (Item 4)
2. Status of the Agreement and Protocols - (Item 6)
3. Application of Annecy Schedule XIV Norway - (Item 7)
4. Date of Fifth Session - (Item 23)
5. Further Examination of UNESCO requests (Item 20)
6. Meeting required by Article XXIX (Item 22)
7. Franco-Italian Customs Union.
1. Notification under Article XVIII
(2) Notification by Haiti under paragraph 11 - GATT/CP.4/21
The CHAIRMAN explained that a decision was necessary in order
to grant a waiver under paragraph 5 (a) of Article XXV.
Mr. GRADY (United States) suggested that the date at the
end of the draft decision be altered to 30 April 1950.
This was agreed.
A vote was taken in accordance with the provisions of Article XXV;
5(a) and the decision was approved by 17 votes to 0.
(b) Lebanon-Syria - decision on certain measures - GATT/CP.4/27
The decision was approved. GATT/CP. 4/SR.17
page 2
(e) Ceylon - GATT/CP.4/12
The CHAIRMAN explained that this item had already been
considered under item 5 of the Agenda but that as cotton verties had
not been covered by the releases granted at the Third Session it was
necessary to refer the matter to a Working Party for examination.
This was agreed
The CHAIRMAN recalled that an inter-sessional working party
had been set up at the 3rd Session under the Chairmanship of Mr. Hewitt
and he was sure that all the contracting parties would regret that
Mr. Hewitt could not be present at this session. He suggested that
the working party to deal with the Ceylon measure be composed of the
same countries as the inter-sessional working party on Article XVIII,
with the exception of Cuba and Syria who were not represented at the
session, and that the place of these latter countries be taken by Ceylon.
He proposed Mr. de Vries, of the Indonesian delegation, as Chairman in
his personal capacity.
This was agreed.
2. Status of the Agreement and Protocols - GATT/CP.4/26/Rev.1
The CHAIRMAN referred to the discussion at a previous meeting
of document GATT/CP.4/6 describing the status of the various protocols
with regard to acceptance and also of the document circulated by the
Union of South Africa (GATT/CP.4/5) suggesting that governments take
the necessary steps to accept the various protocols in order that one
common text of the Agreement might be operative. The only change in the
situation described in document GATT/CP.4/6 was the acceptance by
Luxemburg of Protocol number 7 modifying Article XXVI.
Mr. WARD (Southern Rhodesia) said that he had been advised
that Southern Rhodesia had decided to accept Protocol 2 relating to
Article XXIV and that an instrument authorising the United Kingdom
representative at Lake Success to sign on their behalf had been
depatched.
Mr. DESAI (India) explained that the Indian representative
at Lake Success had been authorised to sign Protocol 9 replacing GATT/CP.4/SR .17
page 3
Schedule VI and the First Protocol of Modifications but had encountered
procedural difficulties.
The CHAIRMAN regretted this, and said that the Secretariat
would enquire as to the reason.
Mr. MARATITA (Indonesia) said that his delegation had been
instructed to accept Protocol 7 relating to Article XXVI.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) explained that his government had
not yet signed Protocol 2 relating to Article XXIV because it was at
present considering the whole question of the General Agreementt and the
Charter and did not consider it advisable to take piecemeal action.
The CHAIRMAN explained the draft Resolution inviting con-
tracting parties which had not accepted all the protocols to do so
before the opening of the negotiations on 28 September.
The Resolution was accepted by 17 votes to 0.
3. Application of Annecy Schedule XIV - Norway - GATT/CP .4/18
The CHAIRMAN recalled that at the ninth meeting on 1 March
the Contracting Parties had approved the procedure suggested in document
GATT/CP.4/18 and communications had been sent on 2 March to the
acceding governments advising them of the proposed decision extending
the time limit until 30 June for the Norwegian government to notify
the Secretary-General of its intention to apply the concessions
granted at Annecy. The acceding governments had been asked to advise
the Executive Secretary by 15 March in case they had any objection to
this proposal.
No unfavorable reply had been received and, accordingly, the
Contracting Parties might now consider giving approval to the draft
decision contained in document GATT/CP.4/18.
The Decision was approved by 17 votes to 0.
Mr. SCHÖYEN (Norway) thanked the contracting parties and
acceding governments for this action. GATT/CP.4/SR.17
page 4
4. Date of the Fifth Session
The CHAIRMAN explained that this question was being brought
up earlier than usual in the sssion as he had found some uncertainty
in various working parties as to action which should be taken for lack
of information as to the date of the next session. Further, it was
necessary to decide on the place of the meeting, and while it might
not be possible to make a decision at the present time an exchange of
views would be useful.
As to the date, the Chairman considered that the experiment at
Annecy of having the meeting of the Contracting Parties and the tariff
negotiations running concurrently had not been entirely successful.
It had resulted in frequent conflicts between the two and was one of
the reasons why the session of the Contracting Parties had lasted so
long. There was, however, the experiences of the negotiations in
Geneva, when the negotiations had opened over a month before the
discussions on the Charter began and were therefore well under way.
This, he considered, had been a more successful method of handling the
problem and he suggested that there would be considerable advantage in
keeping the two meetings quite distinct. Consequently the meetings
of the Contracting Parties should take place either six weeks before
September 28 or begin some time after that date. August seemed to
him too soon after the present session. He suggested therefore the
9 November, in order that the Contracting Parties might finish before
Christmas.
Mr. PHILIP (France) wondered whether it was necessary to
allow as much as six weeks for the session and suggested that it might
begin a week or ten days later.
The CHAIRMAN thought that past experience showed five or
six weeks to be the average length of a session.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) enquired whether the Contracting
Parties would be meeting at Torquay.
The CHAIRMAN considered that there were several possibilities
as to the place to hold the session. Torquay was, of course, one of
them, but this had the disadvantage of a possible conflict between the GATT/CP.4/SR.17
page 5
two meetings. It seemed to him that it might be useful to separate
the sessions from the negotiations. He had considered Geneva, which
was of course convenient from the Secretariat point of view, but did
seem inconvenient in that delegates would wish to keep in touch with
their colleagues at the tariff negotiations. Consequently, he
asked the meeting to consider the possibility of holding the session
at London where delegations would not be too far from Torquay and where
documents and conference facilities were easily available from the
United Kingdom Government. The representatives of the United Kingdom
had also indicated that Church House could be made available.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) said that his delegation, and he
thought other small delegations, would find it very difficult, expensive
and inconvenient to have the one meeting in Torquay and one in London.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) supported the proposal of the
Chairman. While Torquay would be perfectly feasible for the Con-
tracting Parties meeting, it would mean transferring the entire
Secretariat machine to Torquay, whereas in London there were already
certain facilities. Furthermore, there was the convenience for
delegations in being in a large centre and near their embassies.
Mr. MERINO (Chile), Mr. RIBEIRO (Brazil), and Dr. BENES
(Czechoslovakia) agreed with the New Zealand delegate.
In reply to a question by Mr. Philip (France), the CHAIRMAN
explained that there was accommodation in Torquay to hold both
meetings and also that the communications between Torquay and London
were excellent. The main reason for suggesting a place other than
Torquay for the Contracting Parties was that when the meetings were in
the same place they tended to interfere with each other.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) thought that one of the main reasons
for the length of the Annecy session had been the need for drawing up
new procedures for the accession of countries to the General Agreement
and now that the form had been established, there would be no need
for such lengthy discussions on this subject.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) said that although ; r-1-J,1ised
with the small delegations and had no strong views as to place of GATT/CP.4/SR.17
page 6
meeting, his delegation was particularly insistent on the need for
short sessions and he would favour holding a session in London if it
would have that result. Furthermore, the personnel required for the
Contracting Parties and the tariff negotiations was generally quite
different and if it was not different then the meetings were delayed.
Probably from a long-term point of view it would be more economical
to keep the two sessions separate.
Mr. GRADY (United States), while he had no strong views,
would support the Chairman's proposal.
Mr. BOEKSTAL (Netherlands), Mr. SCHOYEN (Norway), Mr. WARD
(Southern Rhodesia) and Mr. SAW OHN TIN (Burma) wore in favour of
holding the two meetings in one place.
In reply to a question from Dr. Botha (South Africa), the
CHAIRMAN said that if it were necessary at the close of the tariff
negotiations a short session of the Contracting Parties could easily
be called to deal specifically with questions arising out of the
negotiations. Consequently, this meeting could be attended by
delegates present at Torquay.
The CHAIRMAN said that while he had every sympathy for the
small delegations, he did want to emphasise the need for maintaining
the high quality of representation in the Contracting Parties and he
hoped that the delegations for the Fifth Session would not be only
those taking part in the tariff negotiations. He thought the dis-
cussion had been a useful one and suggested that countries consider
the alternatives, consult with their governments and a final decision
as to the time and place could be reached at a later meeting.
5. Further Examination of the Requests of the Director-General of
UNESCO which were discussed at the Third Session (Item 20)
(Document GATT/CP.4/28).
The CHAIRMAN explained that this had already been discussed
in the Contracting Parties when it had been decided to revert to the
question at the close of the UNESCO meeting. The Draft Convention
drawn up by the UNESCO meeting would be discussed further at the
meeting of the UNESCO Conference in Florence. GATT/CP.4/SR.17
page 7
Mr. BERNARD (Belgium) said that the importance his country
attached to the work of UNESCO had already been demonstrated during the
session at Annecy. He hoped that the agreement would be adepted by
UNESCO and proposed that the Contracting Parties draw up a recommendation
supporting the suggestion made by the Director-General.
Dr. WALKER (Australia) agreed with the Belgian representative
and thought that the Contracting Parties could agree to bring the
suggestions to their governments.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) considered that the agreement reached
by the UNESCO Committee was in general a good one and explained that as
a private individual he intended to take the advice of the Director-
General of UNESCO. He thought there was a good chance that this
agreement would be accepted after the UNESCO meeting at Florence. He
did not, however, consider that there should be an official link between
this type of agreement and the very different type of bargaining that
went on during tariff negotiations. The agreement could always be
referred to during the tariff negotiations but he thought that it was
up to the individual contracting parties to make requests for concessions
on the items dealt with in the UNESCO agreement.
The CHAIRMAN said that it was clear that it was not the
agreement that was before the Contracting Parties in any way, but rather
the letter from the Director-General. There was not much more that
the Contracting Parties acting jointly could do. Both letters of the
Director-General had been circulated and his desire to see such items
embraced in the tariff negotiations had been brought to the attention
of all contracting parties and acceding governments. Anything further
was for action by individual contracting parties. The Contracting
Parties acting jointly should take note of these two letters. This
was agreed.
6. Meeting of the Contracting Parties required by Artucle XXIX (Item 22)
The CHAIRMAN explained that at the last session it was
decided to postpone a decision on the date for convening a meeting to
consider the maintenance or amendment of the General Agreement. It GATT/CP. 4/SR. 17
Page 8
still appeared inappropriate to arrange at this time for the holding
of such a meeting and the draft decision circulated to contracting
parties left it for the contracting parties to decide when they deem
appropriate. This was adopted by 18 votes to none.
7. Statement by the delegate of France on the Franco-Italian
Customes Union.
Mr. PHILIP (France) made a statement on the Franco-Italian Customs
Union which has been circulated as GATT/CP.4/30.
Mr. GRADY (United States) thanked the French delegate for his
statement. He explained that when the time came for examination of
the details of the proposed customs union, the United States would
want a full exploration of any agreements between producers groups in
the two countries that might have the effect of nullifying the
objectives of Article XXIV. They considered this necessary as they
had already received information that such agreements were contemplated
or already negotiated. His delegation considered that the use of
private producer agreements in the place of governmental trade barriers
which had been removed by the formation of a customs or economic union
could frustrate the basic objectives of the Union. Any restrictive
arrangements would eliminate the competitive stimulus which the removal
of governmental barriers was designed to create. His delegation
considered that the governments involved should take appropriate
measures to prevent or eliminate such agreements. Full information
should be provided to the Contracting Parties concerning the details
of any negotiations and the drafts of any producers' agreements, both
contemplated and concluded. His delegation further felt that a
procedure should be established for the notification to the Executive
Secretary of the terms of any new producers' agreements as they
materialized.
The United States delegation recognized that there might be
exceptional cases where removal of governmental barriers threatened
the very existence of a major industry or one of its members. If
such removal resulted in the importation of a product in such increased
quantities as to cause or threaten serious injury to the domestic
producers of a significant industry producing a like or competitive
product in a member country, the Contracting Parties should consider GATT/CP. 4/SR. 17
Page 9
the problem and perhaps permit the institution of mitigating
measures tending to reduce such imports or to minimize the effects
of such imports, e.g. a temporary subsidy or a temporary tariff to
permit a domestic industry to make the necessary adjustments to
meet the new competition or to shift to other lines of production.
At the same time, the United States delegation wished to
reaffirm to the French and Italian representatives the full support
of the United States for the establishment of a customs union which
had the result of decreasing barriers of all types between the union
and third countries.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) concurred with the French delegation. In
agreement with France, his country intended to carry out a customs
union for the purpose of integrating the economy of the two countries
and as a part of the plan of integration of all countries within the
European economy. He assured the Contracting Parties that his
Government had no intention of basing it on cartels or other agreements
which were harmful to the intent of such a customs union or to the
development of the various economies.
Mr. PHILIP (France) explained that among the essential provisions
of the agreement of 2 March, 1950 -the elimination of quantitative
restrictions, comparison of the two tariffs and the lowering of certain
duties - there was nothing that envisaged industrial agreements.
During the course of the negotiations it was of course both normal
and necessary that the two governments had not only governmental experts
but representatives of professional organizations, both of employers and
workers and of consumers organizations to advise and comment. He knew
of no cartel or agreement at the present time. He was quite aware of
course that not only in France and Italy but in Europe as a whole there
was always the problem of agreements between industrialists. His
country was in the process of preparing a bill to control cartels.
Furthermore, the Economic Commission of the Council of Europe was GATT/CP. 4/SR. 17
page 10
preparing a Draft Agreement for the control of cartels in Erope based
on the Federal Trade Commission and he hoped this would be adopted by
all countries. He wished to emphasise that this aspect was taken into
account by his Government in this agreement and the interests of
consumers were provided for.
The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Philip and Mr. Di Nola. He said
that it was clear that this was not a formal notification to the
Contracting Parties but simply for the information of the contracting
parties.
The meeting adjourned at 5.50 p.m. |
GATT Library | gq203qf6712 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 16, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 16/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.7/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gq203qf6712 | gq203qf6712_90270126.xml | GATT_142 | 523 | 3,595 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 7/Corr. 1
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 16 November 1950
BILINGUAL
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE ORIGINAL: FRENCH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 4:
The statement of Mr. DI NOLA should read as follows:
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said his country suffered from constant demographic
pressure and a scarcity of certain essential foodstuffs and of almost all the
raw materials for industrial use. For this reason, the problem under
discussion was of particular concern to Italy. The Italian economy was
in a position of inferiority because of control of exports of raw materials
and foodstuffs mentioned above.
For this reason Article XX was of particular importance to Italy, While
they locked forward to the day when the shortage and maldistribution of raw
materials would cease, there was no denying the necessities of existing
conditions.
It was true that under the present text, extensions beyond the date
fixed could be granted in particular cases, but no organization existed which
could give a prompt reply to an applicant. The present session would con-
sider proposals for the more effective administration of the Agreement, so
that he hoped the situation would be different in a year's time. Meanwhile,
however, he associated himself with the proposal of the United States, which
would enable the Contracting Parties to keep the matter regularly under review,
while the United Kingdom proposal would tend to postpone the question to an
uncertain and possibly distant date.
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Cinquième Session
COMPTE-RENDU DE LA SEPTIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum
Page 4:
La déclaration de M. DI NOLA doit être libellée comme suit:
"M. DI NOLA (Italie) déclare que son Pays souffre d'une pression
démographique constante et d'une pénurie de certains produits alimen-
taires essentials et de presque toutes les matières premières d'usage
industriel. Pour cette raison, le problème en discussion intéresse
tout specialement l'Italie.
"L'économie italienne se trouve en état d'infériorité à cause
du contrôle des exportations des matières premières et des produits
alimentaires susdits. Elle aurait done grand avantage de voir cesser
tout régime de répartition inégale et arbitraire.
"C'est pourquoi l'article XX, présente pour l ' Italie une
importance particulière. Tout en aspirant au jour ou la pénurie
et la répartition inéquitable des matières premiéres auront
cessé, on ne peut nier les exigences de la situation actuelle. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 7/Corr .1
Page 2
"Il est vrai que le libellé actual de l'article XX permet, dans des Xpro
..
rsc.:ecpicic1ge.3, acpériode deoltransioron aIl elà de4l1od arctu)cIO
,d,cf Mais l n'existe epasa dsorga sms qt csoic.à mme de don,eê}:zi t .ai
iel,époaieuàtcuine el e demamden Ar ul. de lJ Zes CCJaacs elleo. tIuc
exam5nées des rroppositions pee dent à rendre plds souple e :pl ti cl
ppeto l' ac1ion des Parties[c. Ccntractautos. Auosi M. DI BN Osespère[pe ~.~A §L H.- Df OLA JrO i -
différenteetans an. d-il cesyra.swns stc~ltt s: S2 5._ Lil
pa.ition des Eta.s3UCis 'qu l:peose C -t:l.t aatteai uxP:rtics
esCodnexeminertrlaactest.oi àu&' e12arle cré vnte sr0l1r"Iicre.alors quc
. repsitianniqueon brit tendrai à e uieir a.nvy~r e. à enestaieon aurca*
e et peut-être éloignée." . .:. |
GATT Library | tm187bk4148 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 10, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.7/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tm187bk4148 | tm187bk4148_90270084.xml | GATT_142 | 334 | 2,151 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B.
TARIFFS AND TRADE 10 March 1950 GATT/CP.4/SR.7/Corr.1 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
CORRIGENDUM
Page 4.
Mr. Sveinbjørnsson's statement should read as follows :
"Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) said that instructions from
his Government were awaited. Never-the-less he thought
that his Government would be in full agreement - in principle -
with the United Kingdom proposal since it would be regrettable
if the concessions of Geneva and Annecy were to be in danger
by 1 January, 1951. Whether or not the results of the Geneva
and Annecy negotiations seemed satisfactory they should not be
allowed to vanish. However, since a decision taken by the
Contracting Parties before the Annecy acceding governments had
become contracting parties would be binding on them, but not
automatically on all contracting parties, the Danish Government
probably would prefer that the Contracting Parties should
defer taking a decision. However, he hoped that his Government
would also in practice be able to accept the British proposal,
when the question was to be decided upon by the end of the
Torquay negotiations.
"As the liberalization of trade progressed, tariffs were
becoming more and more important. Among all countries
Denmark probably had the lowest tariffs and it would not be
possible for Denmark to liberalize her trade further unless
other countries could adjust their tariffs to bring them more
in balance with the Danish tariffs than was now the case. A
balance could be reached in more than one way and methods other
than the readjustment of higher tariffs had to be kept in
mind.
"His delegation was in favour of the United Kingdom proposal,
but would support it only with the understanding that a
decision would be taken after Denmark had become a contracting
party, and that the acceptance of the proposal should be
contingent upon good results being reached at Torquay, and in
the OEEG, when problems of a similar kind were to be discussed
in the coming months. " |
GATT Library | zh175fw1745 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England, on Tuesday, 7 November 1950 at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 8, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.7 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zh175fw1745 | zh175fw1745_90270125.xml | GATT_142 | 2,246 | 14,020 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 7
TARIFFS AND TRADE 8 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session.,
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Held.at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England,
on Tuesday, 7 November 1950 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed:. Amendment of last paragraph of Part II of Article XX of
the General Agreement to correspond with Article 45 of the
Havana Charter (GATT/CP.5/17).
Amendment of last paragraph of Part II of Article XX of the General
Agreement to correspond with Article 45 of the Havana Charter (GATT/CP.5/17)
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that the aim of the United
Kingdom proposal was to substitute for the date of January 1st 1951 in Part II of
Article XX, which had been fixed as a clsoing date. for the. trasitional period in
which Contracting Parties might take measures to cope with shortages of supply
and meet the requirements of price-fixing policies, even if they were not fully
compatible with other articles of the Agreement, the more flexible formula contained
in Article 45 of the Havana Charter. As a result of continued shortages, balance
of payments difficulties, and other economic problems, it had been necessary for
many countries to maintain restrictive measures. Although the framers of the
Agreement had considered that the circumstances requiring the maintenance of such
measures would be transitional; these conditions had, in fact, continued longer
than had been contemplated and were still existent. Hi, country had had limited
resort to such measures, and the discussions at the Fourth Session had shown that
other countries had employed them to a much greater extent. The present outlook
did not make it appear practicable to abolish the restrictions. It was important
in view of urgent action which might have to be taken by governments, that they
should not be hampered by having to seek the approval of the Contracting Parties,
who might not be in session when the need for such action arose. He referred to
the corresponding provision in the Havana Charter which left the necessary latitude.
At Geneva it had been thought that by the end of 1950 the difficulties of the
post-war transitional period would have, been removed. At Havana, however, they had
been less optimistic, and he proposed that the Contracting Parties follow the text
of the Charter. This course involved no serious risk since it would be open to the
Contracting Parties at any time to set a new date.
Mr.MELANDER (Norway), pointing out that the proposal was also made by
Norway, expressed his full agreement with the representative of the United Kingdom.
The exceptions under Article XX were of two kinds: those which; by their nature;
could be considered as permanent (Part I), and those which could be considered as
of a temporary character (Part II). As regards. the latter, he thought that
while the first two exceptions were still necessary to meet situations cf short
supply and the requirements of price fixing, the third point, concerned with 'the
liquidation of surpluses arising from the exigencies of the war, no longer
required their attention. He therefore urged the Contracting Parties to introduce
the more flexible rule.
Dr. GUERRA (Cuba) voiced the strong opposition of his delegation to the
United Kingdom proposal, which, if accepted, might prove equivalent to a waiving
of many of the most important provisions of the Agreement. He feared that the GATT/CP. 5/SR. 7
Page 2
amendment might be used to cover other purposes than those in view of which
Article XX had been drafted. He had heard a reference by Sir Stephen Holmes
to balance of payments difficulties, which made him feel that it was essential
strictly to limit any resort to this clause. The articles concerning balances
of payments had been most thoroughly discussed at Geneva and Havana and had
been drafted to meet all reasonable needs, When drafting the Havana Charter
it had been possible to avoid fixing a time-limit to the exceptions of Part II
because the imminent establishment of the ITO was expected. This organization
was considered capable of keeping a close watch over the application of the
Charter. But without an ITO, and with the Contracting Parties meeting only
once or twice a year, his delegation felt that the proposal before them might:
create loopholes for the introduction of measures Which might not be
justifiable.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) expressed his support for the views put owrard
by the representative of Cuba. Hsi delegation did not feel that at this stage the
Agreement should be amended peceamelJ. A number of amendments to bring the
Agreement..into conformity with the Charter had been made in 1948 but these
amendments were a.well-balanced selection of a larger number which had been
proposed. If any further amendments were to be made, attention should be paid
to the need for the maintenance of the balance which had been kept up to now
in the Agreemen.,
ihen the Geneva Conference drafted the exceptions contained in Part II,
they had had very specific cases i m ind; the Contractin gParties were now
being asked to accept an inteprretation of points (a) and. (b) with much
broader implication.sHRe had been particularly disturbed by Sir Stephen Holmes.
reference to balance of payments difficulties, whic jmaec him feel that points
(a) and (b) were now being ocantrued to cover situations which had never been
envisaged .:
If specific cases, which we re worthy consdeertaion,we re brought
before the Contracting Parties, he felt sure that they would be fairly dealt.
wtih.
M. ALRRE (France) said that the text of the Agreement had been
considered provisional by the drafters, who had specifically provide din
Article XXIX for its revision, if, by September 30 1949, the Havana Charter
had not entered into force, Decisions on this point had been postponed,
and the Agreement remained in its provisional state. It would not, however,
be reasonable to maintain in force an article in a form which was stricter
than that of the Charter. And while he understood the disadvarntages of
piecemeal modification, he felt it would be more disadvantageous to keep
the article as itw as. He submitted wto possibilities: either t a adopt
thee txt of Article 45 of the Charter or to modify the date in Article XX
to 1 January 1953.
Dr. BOTHA (South Africa) spoke in favour of the amendment,. which
appeared purely designed to adapt the Agreement to present conditions. He
expressed his support for the proposal purely .and simply as an amendment to
the Agreement to make it confor nto new conditio.ns He felt that it was
unnecessary and undesirable to relate the Proposed amendment to the text of
the Havana Charter, which was a separate document.
Mr. BROWN (United States) stressed the difference in the spirit and
substance: which existed between the exceptions in Part I and those in Part II
of Article XX which had been referred to by the delegate of Norway. The former GATT/CP. 5/SR. 7
Page. 3
were of a type normally inserted in trade agreements and were, therefore, of a
Permanent character, The latter were temporary exceptions intended to meet
exceptional difficulties' in the transitional period He deplored the tendency
for temporary measures to become permanent. Any temporary exceptions should
be kept under constant review. He agreed with the delegates of Cuba and
Canada that it would be unfortunate to accept the Uneited Kingdom proposal.
He could nt. agree with the remark of the delegate of Norway that
the question of the. liquidation of temporary surpluses was no longer important.
Such difficulties. might still exist. He did not think that contracting :
parties had forgottenethe -ffort which the United States had made to produce
surpluses over toeir cwn needs in order to make foodstuffs awd rae matorials
available to the oest Sf the world. ffe eofects of these efforts were still
Moth.them,
Without enteiing ' netao adailed sicn qio`iof the subject he felt
hd must register his agree wnt -.ith the remarks of tpe reoresentatives of
Cuba and Canada to the effect that oherCcnt-acting Parties had beee asood tc
give to Part II a somewhat broader interpretation than had been expressed
in its first' draft.
H0 felt, however, that thase wd: some justificatici for'the proposal
before them, particularly in a case where urgent steps had to be takea by A
contractang arty. t a time when the Contracting earti s were not in session.
H had; been impressed b the'suggestion made b the'represet tive'of France,
and thought that the proposal might best be dispofed 'o by changing the date
at. present specified in Article XX. The problem of shortwges vas likely to
concern Contracting Parties in the near future. It might be necessary to
institute controls in thrs pe iod,:an , in. particular, before the next session
of the Contracting Parties. e yath`dote of that session the Contracting
Parties would know more on this point. They would also know more about the
prospects of the Havana Charter. The fundamental attitude of the United
States' delegation towards temporary mea mres rade'him reluctant to accept
the ate of.'1953, and he proposed 1952, a date which could be extended if
it, should prove necessary. He also wished to suggest that the Contracting
Parties give consideration to the possibility of effecting the amendment
by resolution rather than by amforfal amendment of the Agree.ent' He
believed that. this procedure had been follownd ir similas eaess in phe Past.
M, CASSIERS (Belgium) felt that the General Agreement established
arul b.ie that measures designed to cope with shortages and with the
requirements of price .contwol iruld have to be justified before the
Contracting Parties. Part II of Article XX provided a temporary exception
to this rule, which allowed measures to be. taken up to a certain date
without any justification having to be submitted to the Contracting Parties.
It followed that to accept the United Kingdom proposal would be equivalent
to making the' exception the rule, and the rule the exception. The pcceLtance
of this amendmmnt Might, therefore, have a catastrophic effect on the
Agreement, He felt, that the wiser solution woued b, some form of resolution
which, without amending theeAgrmement, would provide that the prooisi ns
of Article XX would not be invoked up to some such date at 1 January, 1952,
to compel a contracting parimpo Musing or maintining measures after 1 January,
1951, to justify its action before the Contracting Per.ics,
He thought that comparison with the text of the Havana Charter was
misleading in that Article 45 of the Charter, though admittedly more flexible,
presupposed the existence of an International Trade Organization/to act as a
fully equipped GATT/CP. 5/SR. 7
Page 4
safeguard of the letter and spirit of the Charter.
Mr. JOHNSON (New Zealand) spoke in support of the proposal of the
United :Kingdom and Norway, and felt that some distinction should be drawn
between the provisions relating to shortages and price control, and those
relating to liquidation of surpluses. It did not appear to him that the
present position was such as to justify the extension of the, time limit in
the latter case. As regards the former two provisions, however, he agreed
that circumstances would justify the extension of the time limit at least.
until 1 January 1952.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) said that he had intended to request
instructions from his governrment in the light of the discussions on this item.
He felt, however, that he could support the proposal of the United States
except with regard to point (c), on which he a agreed with the representative
of New Zealand.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said his county suffered from constant
demographic pressure, which made the problem under discussion of particular
concern to Italy. His country had achieved considerable industrial
development, which was accompanied by dependance on a substantial measure
cf imports of foodstuffs and of all their raw materials. This placed the
Italian Economy in a position of inferiority in. periods of world scarcity and
of ccntrol of exports.
For this reason Article XX was of particular importance to Italy.
While they looked forward to the day when the shortage and maldistribution of
raw materials would cease, there was no denying the hecessities of existing
conditions.
It was true that under the present text, extensions beyond the
date fixed could be granted in particular cases, but no organisation existed
which could give a prompt reply to an applicant. The present session would
consider proposals for the more effective administration of the Agreement,
so that he hoped the situation would be different in a year's time, Meanwhile,
however, he associated himself with the proposal of the U. S. A., Which would
enable the Contracting Parties to keep the matter regularly under review.
Mr. DESAI (India) pointed cut that controls did not seem to be
diminishing in intensity. Same countries, which had been maintaining
controls had reached the point of considering their removal, but they, in
common with other countries which had not hitherto felt the need for controls,
were faced with the necessity for instituting and extending controls to meet
present conditions. He therefore Supperted the proposed amendment. While
favouring the proposed extension of the date to 1 January, 1953, he would be
prepare to accept the United States' of 1952 in view of the hope
that by the beginning of 1952 machinary would be available to enable the
Contracting Parties to keep the matter under constant review.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m.
?1
"013
"! 1?? |
GATT Library | pt996mq4939 | Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Tuesday, 28th February, 1950, at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 28, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) | 28/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.7 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pt996mq4939 | pt996mq4939_90270083.xml | GATT_142 | 2,856 | 18,233 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP .4/SR.7
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON 28 February 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Tuesday, 28th February, 1950, at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Hon L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Proposal by the United Kingdom to
re-validate the Geneva and Annecy
.. SchAed/Cu.e/s) (GTTPo47.
Reverting to the proposal by the United Kingdom to
re-validate the existing scheduAIlMes, the CHRAN outlined the
discussions at the preceding meetingd and invite further comments.
.r, DESAI (India) said thatfhe was in Lull agreement with the
United Kingdom proposal, but he had to point out the peculiar
difficult c nfronting the Indian Government on this question.
India was applying the agreement only provisionally, until
1 ;a1nuary, 195, and the Government had appointed a Fiscal
Commission to examine the question of whether to continue to
adhere to the Agreement aftar.that date0 Until :the Commission
had reported their findings in the middle of this year, the
Government of India were unable to say whether it could accept
thesroposal to revalidate the .Schedulesv India was in full:
agreement with the principle of re-validation and would have no
obJaction if the proposal were accepted in principle with th:
understan ing that'India could not take a final decision until
later in the year.
Mr. STEYN (Union of South Africa) said that his Government
had given careful consideration to the proposal, and was in
agreement w ith it asfar as the re-validation of the Geneva and
Anecy Schedules was concernAed. distinct advantage of the
proposed action lay in the firmness and stability it would lend
to the Agreement, which would be in the interests of exporters and
importers of all countries. e His Govrnment also believed that
an early decision, taken well in advance of the Tariff Negotiations,
would be desirable. The ways and means of carrying out the pro-
posal, however, should be entrusted to a working party for detailed
study. GATT/CP. 4/SR.7
Page 2
Mr. LECUYER (France) said that the French delegation was
in agreement with the proposal in principle, and the intentions
of his Government had been made known to other contracting
parties through diplomatic channels, However, the method of
re-validating the Schedules as proposed by the United Kingdom
was not entirely satisfactory. The re-validation should not be
made obligatory before the opening of the negotiations; on the
contrary its terms should be a subject of negetiation at Torquay.
If it were decided now unconditionally to re-validate the
existing Schedules the existing tariff rates could not be modified
during the negotiations and the position of existing contracting
parties would be made less advantageous than if it were not so
decided. The prospective acceding governments would have little
interest at stake, since the re-validated concessions would be
enjoyed by them on account of the most-favoured-nation clauses:
in their commercial treaties in any case. The re-equipment and
development of French industries in recent years had entirely
changed the industrial situation of the country. Consequently,
the antiquated tariff as it is now applied needed a thorough
revision. This being the case, the French Government was not
in a position to sign a document such as was prepared by the
United Kingdom Government to commit itself to the unqualified
re-validation of concessions which it had granted in the past.
Since, however, it did not seem to be impossible to overcome the
inherent legal difficulty and it might be possible to draw up an
instrument which would be acceptable to all contracting parties
the French delegation would agree to the suggestion to have the
question considered by a working party.
Mr. GRADY (United States) also agreed that the complicated
technical proposal should be studied at length by a working party.
Most of the reciprocal trade agreements concluded by the United
States Government since 1934 were for a duration of three years
were to be automatically extended:
but upon expiration/the procedure was comparable to that of
Article XXVIII of the Agreements However, when extending the
terms of such agreements it had been rare either for the United
States or for the other party to resort to re-negotiation for the
purpose of raising a rate in the agreed schedules. The United
States Government never regarded Article XXVIII as intended to be
used for the purpose for an upward general adjustment of tariffs, GATT/CP.4/SR. 7
Page 3
and it would profoundly regret having to use the Torquay
negotiations as an occasion for increasing its own tariff rates.
However, if other contracting parties should seek to raise their
tariffs under the terms of Article XXVIII, doubtless the pressure
on the United States Government for a comparable revision in its
tariff would be irresistible. The resort to Article XXVIII,
if unavoidable, should be made only in very special circumstances
and by mutual agreement. It would be damaging to the interests
of all if a general rise in tariffs should result. Otherwise,
the remaining provisions of the Article would lend momentum to
a general upward movement of tariff rates; this snowball effect
must be avoided at all costs. The United States delegation
therefore supported the proposal in principle, but believed that
the details should be considered by a working party, which should
start on the principle that whereas the need for increasing a
tariff rate should be recognized in special cases, wide use of
the exception should be prevented.
Mr. SUETENS (Belgium) believed that the idea of re-validating
the existing schedules for three years was a simple one, and
therefore an attractive proposition. It was especially timely
because the momentum gained in the past activities of the Con-
tracting Parties was worth retaining. However, it raised
questions of a serious nature, especially from the point of view
of countries having moderate tariffs. The lowering of protective
tariffs by countries having high tariff rates would not involve as
heavy a sacrifice as the binding of existing tariffs by countries
having low fiscal tariffs. Among the Benelux countries Belgium
applied practically no quantitative restrictions, and a higher
tariff was therefore widely demanded. At the time the tariff
negotiations were conducted in 1947, customs tariffs had little
significance. Now Belgium felt that whereas it had been
commercially disarmed through the tariff concessions it had
granted other countries, no actual compensation had been received
by it as most other countries continued to apply quantitative
restrictions. The repeated effort made by Belgium in inter-
national organizations for the lowering of excessive and pro-
hibitive tariffs had not met with success. Since any action
by his Government would also affect the other two members of the
Benelux Customs Union his Government had arranged a meeting of the GATT/CP.4/SR. 7
Page 4
three governments concerned, and he would report on the position
of the Belgian Government by the end of the week after his
return from that meeting.
Mr. CLARK (Australia) was in favour of the suggestion to
refer the question to a working party, but pointed out that the
Australian delegation would not be able to define its position
at this Session. The Australian Government was at present
engaged in comprehensive examination of its tariff, and it
would be unable until the beginning of the Torquay negotiations
to indicate whether it could accept the revalidation of its
schedule.
Mr. SVEINBJORSNSSON (Denmark) said that instructions from
his Government were awaited. Before receiving these he could
say with confidence that the Government would be in full agree-
ment with the United Kingdom proposal since it would be regrettable
if the concessions of Geneva and Annecy were to be in danger by
1 January, 1951. Whether or not the results of the Annecy
negotiations were totally satisfactory they should not be allowed
to vanish. However, since a decision taker by the Contracting
Parties before the Annecy acceding governments had become con-
tracting parties would be binding on them without their partici-
pating in the decision, the Danish Government believe that the
Contracting Parties should defer taking a decision. However,
it was hoped that if the question were decided before the
commencement of the Torquey negotiations, his Government would
acceptthe proposal.
As the liberalization of trade progressed, tariffs were
becoming more and more important. Among the countries in
Europe, Denmark actually had the lowest tariff and it would not
be possible for Denmark to lower its tariff further unless
other countries could adjust their tariffs to bring them more
was now the case. A balance could be reached in more than one way
and methods other than the read justmentl of higher tariffs had
to be kept in mind.
His delegation was in favour of the United
Kingdom proposal, but would support it only with the understanding
that a decision would be taken after Denmark had become a con-
tracting party, and that the implementation of such a decision
should be contingent upon good results being reached at Torquay,
and understanding on tariff policies being obtained at the OEEC
and other international organizations. GATT/CP.4/SR. 7
Page 5
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) said that he agreed
with what had been aptly expressed by the representative of
Belgium on behalf of the Benelux countries. He would only
add that the sentiment of the Dani sh representative on the
question of balanced tariffs was shared by his delegation. The
Netherlands, naturally, was also in favour of an equilibrium
in tariffs, but, however, would be in favour only of an equili-
brium established at a low level of tariffs.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that he had already declared in
support of the United Kingdom proposal, and this for two reasons.
First, it was believed indispensable to give the General Agree-
ment the stability which was necessary if the whole machinery of
the GATT was not to be in danger. Secondly, it would provide a
basis for the Torquay negotiations. During the Annecy negotia-
ions the then acceding governments based their considerations
on the knowledge that the concessions in force for the existing
contracting parties would be in effect for another year, a period,
which, even though not very long, was long enough to be of some
value to the acceding governments. If there should be no
commitment on the part of the contracting parties to continue to
apply their concessions for a definite period, it would be very
difficult for the new acceding governments to consider their
position, as the Torquay negotiations would not terminate until
some time in 1951 when Article XXVIII of the Agreement would
have already become operative. In default of such an assurance
negotiations would need to be carried out on all items and an
almost impossible situation would obtain. Mr. DI NOLA disagreed
with the contention of the French representative that the con-
tracting parties should not be bound by such a decision prior to
the negotiations; the situation was in fact the same as that at
Annecy where negotiations on a reciprocal basis had not been
hampered by the fact that the contracting parties were bound
to apply their past concessions.
Commenting on the remarks of the Danish representative,
Mr. DI NOLA said that it was not always possible for all GATT/CP. 4/SR. 7
Page 6
countries to maintain the same level of tariffs since the in-
dustrial and agricultural development of different countries
were at different stages and required different degrees of pro-
tection. Too drastic a revision of the existing tariffs should
be avoided and only in exceptional cases a revision of existing
tariff rates should be undertaken.
Mr. H SNIE (Pakistan) said that his legislature had not
even been informed of the provisional application of the Agree-
ment. Nevertheless, the proposal by the United Kingdom, based
upon logic and reason, should not be obstructed by domestic diffi-
culties of one's own creation; indeed, a great deal could be
said in favour of giving the schedules a further lease of life.
However, the qualifying clause in the proposal enabling the
necessary adjustments was essential, although apprehension at
the prospect of a wide revision was also understandable. The
qualification was necessary to convince national legislatures
that too great commitments had not b en made, as some govern-
ments might feel it necessary to readjust past concessions in
order to bring about a better balance in their tariff structure.
The recent changes in the values of currencies would inevitably
have effects on the pattern of trade, which were as yet hard
to forecast. The existing tariff of Pakistan was not of a pro-
tective nature, and the fast development of events seemed to
indicate that a revision would soon be necessary. A release
might therefore be requested in anticipation of such a need.
The Pakistan Government, being grateful to the Contracting
Parties for assistance in meeting their difficulties, would
resort to the provisions of the Agreement concerning waivers
and releases very sparingly, but could not allow the right of a
government to seek alterations in its tariff, in order to bring
about a better balance to be put aside. It was, of course,
recognized that changes on a large scale would impair the past
achievements of the Contracting Parties.
Mr. KEMP (Canada) said that the Canadian delegation wished
to support the United Kingdom proposal, and believed that the GATT/CP. 4/SR.7
Page 7.
revalidation of the existing schedules should be for a
period co-terminous with the Torquay concessions. It
was believed that a three year period would be appropriate
in both cases. Canada had the same experience as the
United States regarding its trade agreements and was of
opinion the three years duration of the General Agreement,
laid down in 1947, did not imply that the Agreement
should be terminated in 1950. Three years had expired
since those far-reaching negotiations took place, and it
was reasonable that some of the tariff concessions-might
be in need of re-adjustment. Article XXVIII provided also
that the contracting parties concerned should endeavour to
maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advan-
tageous concessions not less favourable to trade than
that provided for in the present Agreement. Therefore,
the revision to be in accordance with the provisions
of the Agreement, must not have the effect of worsening
the present situation. Revalidation of the Schedules was
desirable because it would mean substantial and definite
concessions offered by the contracting parties at this
juncture, which were valuable for the promotion of inter-
national trade. Secondly a prolongation for the appli-
cation of the concessions for a definite period would
encourage new entrants to the group. Thirdly, it would
be a convenience if the old Schedules were revalidated
for a period co-terminous with the Torquay concessions,
so as to reduce difficulties and complications to a
minimum.
To the extent that readjustment might be necessary
in a few cases, Mr. KEMP agreed that the right to re-
negotiation should be retained, but chain-action like
withdrawals of concessions shoud be limited. The
discussions at the Contracting Parties should be followed
up by a Working Party.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) said that whereas it might be
easy for governments which did not have to consult their
legislatures on tariff matters to accept such a protocol,
it would not be possible for Norway to undertake to re-
validate its schedule without referring it to the Storting,
which had approved the Agreement for a definite period of
three years. If the protocol were accepted in its present
form, the possibility of any biIateral negotiations between
contracting parties on existing items would be ruled out. GATT/CP.4/SR.7.
Page 8.
In his opinion the proposed working party should be asked
to examine the Geneva and Annecy schedules, as well as
all the protocols of modifications and rectifications, to
try to formulate a consolidated and unified agreement and
schedules before revalidation so as to avoid the confusion
that had been caused by the existence of a multitude of
documents and schedules. If the existing schedules, as
well as those resulting from the negotiations at Torquay,
could be consolidated systematically and put into force
for three years it would greatly simplify the matter.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) thought the representative of
France appeared to have over-emphasized the difficulties
of revalidation. New Zealand was in the same position as
Australia, whose new government was engaged in considering
the present tariff structure of the country. Nevertheless,
his delegation was in a position to support the principle
of revalidating the schedules for a period of three years,
if without prejudice to the right of the contracting
parties to re-negotiate on individual items in their
schedules. Requests had been and might continue to be
exchanged between New Zealand and other contracting
parties. Negotiations on those requests were to take
place at Torquay according to the established procedures.
If these negotiations should prove to be unsuccessful,
New Zealand would prefer that the status. quo be main-
tained and did not anticipate that there would be any
general increase in its tariff. Referring to the remarks
made by the Danish representative, Mr. NICOL was of the
opinion that account should be taken in the negotiations
of paragraph 2(d) of Article 17 of the Havana Charter.
Discussion to be continued at the next Meeting. :
The Meetiagj d oern-d at 12.40mp.r.
?? i
-- |
GATT Library | fv371mq0332 | Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 14, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/12/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.16/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fv371mq0332 | fv371mq0332_90270142.xml | GATT_142 | 256 | 1,817 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR LIMITED B GATT/CP.5/SR.16/Corr.1
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS 14 December BILINGUAL 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING
Corrigendum
Page 4, paragraph 3
The statement of Mr. Nurul HUQ (Pakistan) should be deleted and
replaced by the following:
"Mr Nurul HUQ (Pakistan) desired it to be kept on record that
in his country though the Customs officials had no authority of
their own to allow deviations from the value stated in the
relative import or export licences, they usually took their
orders in this respect from the control authorities who had
their offices on the ports or nearby. The import control
authorities had power to allow small variations in the values
of particular shipments from those entered in the licence,"
PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
Cinquième Session
COMPTE RENDU DE LA SEIZIEME SEANCE
Corrigendum
Page 4, septiéme paragraphe
La déclaration de M. Nurul HUQ (Pakistan) doit se lire ainsi:
"M. Nurul HUQ (Pakistan) désire ou'il soit mentionné dans le compte
rendu que, dans son pays, les fonctionnaires des douanes n'ont
pas les pouvoirs nécessaires pour autoriser de leur propre chef
des variations de la valeur spécifiéer dans les licences d'importa-
tion ou d'exportation de marchandises ; mais ces fonctionnaires
prennent leurs instructions auprès des auterités de contrôôel do't
els services sont instlaéls andsle s portse u aux environs. eLs
autoriéts cahréegs du contôreldes imporattions sont ahbiliétesà
autoriserd e faibels diveregnecse ntrela avleur éerleld' envois
particuleirs et l a avelurs épifée dainsaal liecnec." |
GATT Library | ph321vm6171 | Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England, on Thursday, 30 November 1950 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 2, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 02/12/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.16 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ph321vm6171 | ph321vm6171_90270141.xml | GATT_142 | 2,381 | 15,293 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATT/CP.5/SR. 16
TARIFFS AND TRADE 2nd December 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETlNG
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England,
on Thursday, 30 November 1950 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. DI NOLA (Italy)
Subjects discussed: 1. Report of Working Party "F" on Amendment to
Last Paragraph of Part II of Article XX
(GATT/CP.5/32)
2. Report of Working Party. "G" on Standard Practices
for Trade and Exchange Controls (GATT/CP.5/30)
3. Item 11 of Agenda -Examination, under the Pro-
cedures provided in Article XXIII, of actual cases
of Quantitative Restrictions applied for Protective
Purposes.
4. Item 12 of Agenda - French Export Restrictions on
Hides and Skins (GATT/CP.5/27).
5. De-restriction of the Decisions, Declarations and
Resolutions of the Fourth Session, document
GATT/CP/61 (GATT/CP.5/31)
6. Subsidies, notifications under Article XVI
(GATT/CP. 5/26)
7. Rectifications to Schedule II (Benelux).
In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr. DI NOLA (Italy)
was unanimously elected Chairman for this meeting on the proposal of Mr. TONKIN
(Australia) supported by Mr. NURUL HUQ (Pakistan).
1. Report of Working Party "F" on the amendment of the last paragraph of
Part II of Article XX (GATT/CP.5/32)
M. CASSIERS (Bolgium) explained that the Working Party had concluded that
a definitive decision could be reached only after detailed examination of the
measures covered by sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Part II on the one hand and
(c) on the other. It was for this reason that the Working Party had agreed on
the provisional solution of a waiver until January 1, 1952 of the obligations
contained in the last paragraph, so as to enable a more thorough examination at
the next Session of the question of what extention, if any, should be made with
respect to each of the three sub-paragraphs.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that under the terms of Article XXV(5)(a) the
proposed resolution required approval by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast
and that majority must comprise more than half the contracting parties, i. e., a
minimum of seventeen. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 16
Page 2
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) thanked the Contracting Parties for
giving such careful consideration to t he proposal made by his Delegation and
that of Norway. He could not say that the solution was entirely satisfactory
to his Delegation, which would have preferred a definitive settlement at this
session along the lines suggested in the original proposal. Finally, he did
not think that the question of a two-thirds majority should be included in the
text of the draft resolution since the decision might in fact be unanimous.
The Report was approved.
After the deletion of these words "by a two-thirds majority", the Resolution
was approved by a vote of 21 in favour and none against.
2. Report of Working Party "G" on standard paractices for trade and exchange
controls (GATT/CP.5/30)
Mr. STEYN (South Africa), introducing the Report, wished to emphasize that
the Working Party had been covering now ground on which both the experience and
information of the Contracting Parties were limited. The degree of uniformity
and of standards which could be established was necessarily limited, owing to
the divergence of administrative procedures in the various countries if,
however, the recommendations of the Working Party were approved, it would
constitute a forward step in this field. He thought the Contracting Parties
were much indebted to the United States for suggesting this item for the Agenda.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Working Party for a clear and carefully framed
report and drew attention especially to the recommendations contained therein.
Mr. VON MALTZAN (Germany) said that his country welcomed the initiative
taken by the United States in this matter. He wished to inform the Contracting
Parties that the standards set forth by the Working Party had been successfully
applied in Germany for some time and that constant efforts were being made to
simplify administrative procedures.
Mr. Garcia OLDINI (Chile) questioned the use of the word "code" in paragraph
4 which seemed to him to suggest that the standards would have a certain
obligatory character; this went beyond the recommendation contained in
paragraph 3 (b).
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) explained that the word as used in paragraph 4
did not imply any obligation. He agreed that another wording might perhaps
be found, but emphasized that if the standard practices were to be of any use,
it was necessary that contracting parties should try to follow them so far as
possible.
Mr. CASTRO MENEZES (Brazil) said that the delegation of Brazil agreed with
the recommendation of the Working Party but, to avoid any misunderstanding, he
wished to make the following remarks on the list of standard practices
enumerated in the Annex.
Paragraph 2 of the Annex: The proof submitted to the control authorities
must be based on the bills of lading for the marchandise which indicated a
port or city in the importing country as the final destination in the case of
substantial payments it should be understood that such payment would have been
effected after prior authorization by the exchange control office of the
importing country finally, his delegation understood that the irrevocable
letter of credit referred to would have been issued after prior authorization
by the authorities in the importing country.
Paragraph 3 of the Annex: His delegation understood that the orders
covered by this paragraph would also have been previously submitted to the
control authorities. GATT/CP.5/SR.16
Page 3
Paragraph 5 of the Annex: His delegation considered that the authority
riven to customs officials to grant reasonable tolerance for variations might
be replaced by instructions having the same purpose but fixing the procedure
and the limits of such tolerance.
M.CASSIERS (Belegium) referred to the objections to the word "code" in
paragraph 4 and did not agree that its use in paragraph 4 would be more binding
than in paragraph 3 (b).
Mr. BROWN (United States) thought much credit should go to the Working
Party for an excellent report. Referring to the remark by the Brazilian
delegate, he wondered if their points were not covered by the report,
particularly by the last sentences of paragraphs 2 and 4.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) agreed that the Working Party had
produced a good report. The report might, however, have been even better if
the proposal had been presented earlier and governments had thus had more time
to study the question and make fully available the benefit of their ex-
perience.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Report were approved.
The CHAIRMAN proposed considering the Annex before passing to paragraph 3
of the Report.
Paragraph 1 of the Annex was approved.
Paragraph 2 of the Annex Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) considered
'hat, with regard to new or intensified import restrictions, imposed to save
foreign exchange, the principle that they should not apply to goods for which
foreign exchange had already been transferred was suite correct. As far as
export restrictions were concerned, however, the fact that goods had been paid
for or covered by an irrevocable credit was not so conclusive. New export
restrictions were usually imposed only as a result of some important necessity
such as the danger of an acute shortage of the commodity in question in the
exporting country, and it might be necessary, therefore, to refrain from
licensing the export of the goods although there might remain the question of
the refund of the price of such goods. Sir Stephen considered, however, that
such cases were sufficiently covered by the qualifications "clear and overriding
consideration" in paragraph 4 of the Working Party Report and did not wish to
propose any amendment to paragraph 2 of the Annex. He merely wished this
comment to be placed on the record.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) agreed with the United Kingdom representative.
Dr. CVEC (Czechoslovakia) considered that whether they related to exports
or imports, restrictions were only imposed because of necessity. The purpose
in establishing any standard practices was to avoid hardship to the commercial
community, and for this reason he did not feel that a distinction should be
drawn between import and export restrictions.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom), while believing that there was
perhaps an inherent difference between import restrictions imposed in order
to save foreign exchange and export restrictions arising out of an acute
shortage of a particular commodity, did agree that hardship to the trading
community might arise. He repeated that he did not propose any amendment to
this paragraph.
Paragraph 2 of the Annex was approved. GATT/CP. 5/SR.16
Page 4
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Annex were approved.
Paragraph 8: Mr. BORESSEN (Norway) pointed out that there might be
some difference between the reasonable tolerance as construed in this paragraph
and the practice in his country.
.~~~~~~~~:
7r. NURUL HUQ (Pakistan) ex:lained that in his country the export and
i.nort nthorities wer; loc-.d at the )or and had authority to allo7
deviatior from the sneif id quant- tS orvalues. Customs officials took
their orJrx r, th,
Tphe CFL.TIJiered that both these points w-ero covedin j-aragraih
of the report by the words whenever possible",
~, 'F2G th a iric sat the idea behind paragraph 8 was
that thscustoms officials as distinct from the import authorities should have
son!isc~ien in authorizing minor vaiations.
Paragra.hs 8 and 9 of the Ainex were approved.
Dhe pnnex uas ,pproved as a wholc and the Reiort was reverted to.
Par -ra-h 3 of the Report was approved with an alteration in the French
toxt of sub-paracraxh (b).
Pa.apra h 4 was a-proved rith an .lor'.tion in the French translation of
c"preci eann? the substitution eof the woris -.-is terms of these recommndations"
for the .or "letter of the standards".
P rarra.h 5 was approved.
PTragra h 6 Mr. BRO`. (United Statps) proposed that the report be
,:eestricted earliergthan wouldminorem.lly br the case and sugmested the :ddl
o,Ducimer.
Mr, IAGAR'-L`JTTorI Rhodi-) nd Mr. 1RCIA OLDINT (Chile) pointed
to thepediffieulty that wouldgbe exerienccs by small delerations of di3tant
oeunereos ifeceive governmenps warc toprooc this Re'ort as a iublic
To-umrnt before they had received the anawysis nd comments of their oen
aclo-otions at Torquay. Afeer s.me discussion,athe data of 27 December was
y:ree0 on f)r publication of this report and wt was agreed to delete the ,ords
"at thc agoap of the session" ie par-,r-ah 6 end replace th m by "on 27 D>cember
1950".
T'ime X-ECUmeetingCPETJRY inforrcd the rncetin that the instructions contained
in :ar:gra'h 6 involved the eecenditure of funds by the Sc~retariat. The
C-)tractin. m.rties, ge vieadoa their liAited budrct, h7a ugrerd that no
-riooolzal invo1ino irnciteal 1lai.it woulde be accepbc:ithout considlnrg-;
t 'ei:-,_t imJicitns. , wisophed o ignform tlhe C:ntrcti, -Parti hat
i.uld ol - bleo carry out the instructinons contaigearl 6d in pajrph
oof this t )cwerit 4.e;emtloan prosc.ysposalt the hdiSOsf t eecretaria.t
ThacL,.ait tare ,wisno investigation ofbthee aryctm.-; irplnstinit .1:-i s
cao.uldll ' nowe hoviveon itute l itecedact t;nt hor t.e future.
HAORMAN sa-T said that ontea CntgrPactin rwotldiesk u tae note of this
mestatent.
Papra:a- 6 appwas dnove with the alteration in the date. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 16
Page 5
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) considered that the question of the publicity of
the report concerned not only the Secretariat but delegations, and asked
whether printed copies could be supplied to governments.
This was agreed and the Report as a whole was approved.
3. Item 11. Examination under the procedures provided in Article XXIII
of actual cases of quantitative restrictions applied for
protective purposes.
M. CASSIERS (Belgium) requested that this item be postponed to a later
meeting, as bilateral conversations were new taking place and it was hoped
that the result of these conversations would enable the withdrawal of this
item from the Agenda.
4. Item 12. - French Export Restrictions on Hides and Skins
Mr. BROWN (United States) referred to document GATT/CP.5/27 in which it
was explained that as a result of discussions between the governments of France
and the United States, his Government had decided not to press consideration of
this item at this Session.
M. LECUYER (France) agreed with the United States Representative.
It was agreed to withdraw this item from the Agenda.
5. Derestriction of document GATT/CP. 61 - Decisions, Declarations and
Resolutions of the Fourth Session.
Mr. BROWN (United States) said that his delegation had receives many
enquiries as to the results of the Fourth Session and other governments had
probably found themselves in a similar situation. It was for that reason
that the derestriction of this document was proposed.
This was agreed.
Subsidies under Article XVI (GATT/CP.5/26)
The CHAIRMAN referred to document GATT/CP.5/26, in which were listed the
countries which had sent report on subsidies falling under the terms of
Article XVI. The reports head not been submitted in a uniform manner, and
certain countries had not replied at all. He suggested that this item be
added to the Agenda, in order that consideration could be given to the question
of action to be taken on this matter.
7. Rectifications to Schedule II - Benelux
The CHAIRMAN explained that he had been advised by the Benelux delegations
that, after the devaluation in 1949, certain adjustments were considered in
the specific duties in Schedule II in order to take account of the devaluation
of the Dutch florin. These adjustments would affect 11 specific duties and
7 monopoly duties and would equalize the duties levied in florins and those
levied in Belgian francs. The Benelux delegations had informed him that
these specific duties, after the adjustment had been made, would be lower in
dollars than the specific duties presently provided for in the Schedule.
In order to expedite the work of the meeting, he proposed that this question
be immediately referred to Working Party "B" on Schedules. The alterations
Would be distributed to all countries and any comments could be communicated
direct to the Working Party. GATT/CP. 5/SR.16
Page 6
Paragraph 6 (a) of Article II of the Agreement required that the
Contracting Parties must concur that any adjustments of this nature would
not impair the value of the concessions provided for in the schedules.
This question might be examined when the Working Party had presented its report
on the changes proposed by the Governments of Benelux.
This was approved.
The meeting adjourned at 7. 00 p.m. |
GATT Library | qd049wb9229 | Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Saturday 18 March, 1950, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 18, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.16 and GATT/CP.4/SR.14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qd049wb9229 | qd049wb9229_90270103.xml | GATT_142 | 1,652 | 10,286 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.4/SR.16
TARIFFS AND TRADE 18 March 1950
ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Saturday 18 March, 1950, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman : Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Report of Working Party "B" on the
Revalidation of the Geneva and Anneoy
Schedules (GATT/CP.4/25).
Report of Working Party "B" on the Revalidation of the
Geneva and Annecy Schedules (GATT/CP.4/25).
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands), Chairman of the
Working Party, presented the report,
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) expressed the satisfaction
of his Delegation - as originators of the proposal - for the
agreement in principle hitherto shown to this matter. He
considered it to be of the greatest importance to the success
of the Torquay negotiations and suggested that contracting
parties might consider it opportune to minimize the publicity
given to the arrangements relating to possible modifications
in the present schedules. These arrangements - if broadcast -
might invoke from vested interests a spate of requests for the
revision of rates bound at Geneva and Annecy and Governments
might not always find it easy to resist such pressure. He hoped
this measure of caution would also be borne in mind in the pre-
paration of any document relating to the work of the Fourth
Session and destined for the public.
Mr. MAYATEPEK (Turkey) recalled that his delegation had
expressed its point of view at a previous meeting and was glad
to be able to inform the meeting of his Government's agreement
in principle to the prolongation, for a certain period, of the
Geneva and Annecy schedules. They were convinced that this
prolongation constituted one of the most effective means of
fulfilling the aims of the Agreement. GATT/CP.4/SR.16
Page 2
It had, however, appeared in the course of the discussion
in the Working Party that most delegations - even those of
countries whose concessions had not yet come into effect -
intended to revise their schedules, and to do so to an extent
which it had not been possible to ascertain.
Any more or less extensive tampering with the Geneva and
Annecy schedules would not only run counter to the principles
of the Agreement, but would also favour those countries which
would enjoy the benefits of a trial period as against those
which would commit themselves to a binding of concessions for
the first time. The position of the acceding governments be-
fore their parliaments and public opinion might thereby be made
very difficult. His Government - although decidedly favourable
to the prolongation of all the present schedules - was compelled,
for the reasons he now expressed, to reserve its right to revert
to the question in the course of the Torquay conference.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) referred to a communication of the
Italian Government addressed to the Executive Secretary on
16 January, 1950, by which it accepted, on terms of recipracity
the proposal of the United Kingdom delegation. In view of the
attitude taken by his Government, he wished to express, as an
Observer at the Fourth Session of the Contracting Parties, their
agreement in principle with the resolution, the draft declaration,
and the draft protocol, which were annexed to the report of
Working Party "B".
He wished, however, to reserve the position of his
Government in respect of the third recital of the first reso-
lution, and in respect of one point of paragraph 5 of the
report.
Two tendencies had appeared in the meeting. The first
arose out of the United Kingdom proposal to revalidate the
concessions contained in the Geneva and Annecy Schedules until
31 December, 1953, with the possible exception of "a few modi-
fications of relatively small importance " (the words used in
the airgram of 9 December, 1949). The second tendency arose
out of the point of view supported by the Benelux delegations
and required the re-negotiation at Torquay of the items contained
in the above lists with a view to obtaining new or supplementary
reductions in rates of duty, so as to reduce a disequilibrium
which, in their opinion, appeared to exist in the present level
of customs tariffs. GATT/CP .4/SR .16
Page 3
The Working Party had attempted to bring together these
two tendencies which were rather contradictory, and had
arrived at the compromise in paragraph 5 of the report, which
seemed dangerous to him.
He fully realized that, in requesting countries who would
participate in the Tarquay negotiations, to extend for
a certain period (perhaps three years) the commitments entered
into at Geneva and Annecy, it was not possible and, not even
fair to refuse them the possibility of revising, through new
negotiations, certain commitments which, in the light of expe-
rience had turned out to be harmful to the vital interests of
their economy. But these new negotiations must only be of an
exceptional character and be based - in any case - on Article
XXVIII of the Agreement.
Article XXVIII was a safety valve and not an instrument
of revision. It was even less a means for the levelling of
customs tariffs, even if it were possible to achieve such an
aim in an international conference.
In the light of the above considerations, he hoped it
would be recognized that the third recital of the draft
resolution, (Annex I) which spoke generally of "additional
concessions" without limitation and without reference to
Article XXVIII, and that in particular, paragraph 5 of the
report, which reminded the participating governments "that the
products described in the Geneva and Annecy Schedules might be
subject at Torquay to further negotiations in order to arrive
at new or additional reductions", went well beyond the scope of
Article XXVIII, and might constitute a dangerous incentive
towards the revision of the Geneva and Annecy concessions.
His concern was not only due to the fact that the draft
resolution (Annex I) would require - in accordance with its
fifth recital - the concurrence of the Governments which proposed
to accede to the Agreement under the Annecy Protocol, but was
also due to the special position in which his country found
itself. The Annecy Protocol would not enter into force in so
far as Italy was concerned, before 1 June, 1950. Those countries
therefore which would want to revise the Annecy concessions would
have to indicate what further reduction they propose in the GATT/CP.4/SR.16
Page 4
Italian Tariff by August 1, 1950. This would mean that a
revision would be requested two months after the schedules had
entered into force.
Moreover, the Torquay negotiations would begin on 28
September, 1950, that is too early for any experience to be
gained as to whether the Annecy concessions had been favourable
to the trade between Italy and her partners.
This was not to say that the Italian Government contended
that the results of Annecy were perfect. It simply felt that
the success of any new negotiation was dependent on the expe-
rience that has been gained of the facts, on which experience
alone new demands could be based.
In conclusion, even if his country's special position
were left out of account, he felt that it would be necessary in
the interest of the Torquay Negotiations and of the stability of
the results achieved - that the spirit of Article XXVIII should
not be forgotten, and that if there had to be a revision, - it
should not overstep those limits required by the safeguard of
the essential economic interests of each country.
Mr. IMHOF (Germany) said he had intended to make the
same remarks as the representative of Turkey and for the
same reasons he wished to reserve the position of the Federal
Government with respect to the tariff negotiations.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) recalled the conclusion of the
Chairman of the Contracting Parties at a previous meeting when
the Benelux delegations had raised the question of high customs
tariffs. The general consensus of the debate had been that
high tariffs should be reduced. This was the main purpose of
the Agreement, which did not prescribe any freezing of the situ-
ation. The Benelux countries which had a low tariff, would not
cease to insist on the necessity of reducing high tariffs. This
should and could be done without infringing the stability of
the schedules. The validity of the principles of Article 17 of
the Charter, in particular the rule that a binding of a low rate
should be equivalent to a reduction of a high rate had not been
contested. Nor had he heard anyone contradict the representatives
of the United States and of Canada when they had spoken in favour
of the reduction of high tariffs.
Mr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) supported Mr. Cassiers. GATT/CP.4/SR.16
Page 5
The eleven paragraphs of the report were singly approved
with the amendments contained in document GATT/CP.4/25/Rev.1.
The draft resolution concerning the prolongation of the assured
life of the schedules to the General Agreement was taken up
and Mr. SHAH (India) informed the Contracting Parties that his
delegation, while agreeing in principle with its contents, had
to reserve its position. His Government had appointed a Fiscal
Committee to examine the Indian position with respect both to
the Agreement and the Havana Charter and it was therefore not
possible for him to express his Government's formal approval.
The resolution was approved in oprinciple, the final
approval being deferred until the end of the Session in order
to enable the Annecy Acceding Governments to associate them-
selves with the declared intention of the contracting parties.
The Annecy Acceding Governments would have an opportunity to
express their concurrence with the contents of the fifth recital.
The draft protocol, modifying Article XXVIII of the GATT
contained in Annex II was approved in principle.
The draft declaration on the continued application of the
Schedules to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was
approved in principle.
The meeting was adjourned at 12.15 p.m.
s El Es |
GATT Library | my748xp6193 | Summary Record of the Sixth Meeting : Corrigenda | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.6/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/my748xp6193 | my748xp6193_90270124.xml | GATT_142 | 172 | 1,233 | GENERAL AGREEMENT RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 6/Corr. 1
ON TARIFFS AND 13 November 1950
TRADE ENGLISH ONLY
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTH MEETING
Corrigenda
Page 4, first paragraph
The second sentence in the statement of Mr. CASTRO ENEZES
(Brazil) should read as follows:
"In view of the length of the draft law and the adoption of
some related measures the Brazilian Government intends to
adopt after approval of the draft, the Brazilian Delegation
would request that the Contracting Parties set up a working
Party to examine the draft and the measures with a view to
advising as to their adequacy and conformity with the rele-
vant provisions of the General Agreement and the Protocol of
Provisional Application".
Page 5, paragraph 6
The last sentence in the statement of Mr. CLDINI (Chile)
should road as follows:
"In his opinion, the fact that the Brazilian Government had
asked the Contracting Parties for technical advice on the
application of the Agreement and related matters ruled out
any question of sovereignty". |
GATT Library | qg001dq5065 | Summary Record of the Sixth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay on Monday, 6 November 1950, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 9, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.6 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qg001dq5065 | qg001dq5065_90270123.xml | GATT_142 | 3,025 | 19,683 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.5/SR.6
9 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay
on Monday, 6 November 1950, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Informal Guidance for the Press
(Press Release/15 - draft)
2. Draft Agreement on the Importation
of Insecticides (GATT/CP/79)
3. Brazilian Internal Taxes (GATT/CP.3/42,
para. 17, GATT/CP.4/SR.21 and GATT/CP/72)
4. Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate
(GATT/CP.4/39)
1. Informal Guidance to the Press on the Items of the Agenda (Press Relase/15 -
draft)
The draft Guidance, which incorporated suggestions and corrections,
was considered by the Contracting Parties. Certain drafting changes were
made in the text at the suggestion of various representatives.
At the suggestion of Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) the following
note, similar to the one appearing in the volume containing the text of the
Agreement printed by the United Kingdom Government,, was inserted at the end
of the "List of Governments which have the right to participate in the
Fifth Session" on page 10 of the Guidance:
"The Nationalist Government of the Republic of China has
notified its withdrawal from the General Agreement with
effect from May 5, 1950; the Central People's Government
of China has not yet defined its position with regard to
the General Agreement".
Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) further reserved for his delegation
the right to raise the question of the representation of China at a proper
time.
In response to a suggestion by Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) that it
be made explicit that the suggestions and interpretations in the press
release did not involve the views of the Contracting Parties, the CHAIRMAN
pointed out that a press release as such did not have the status of a
conference document; the Contracting Parties had been called upon merely
to de-restrict a paper containing information of a restricted nature.
It was agreed to de-restrict the Informal Guidance as contained in
Press Release/15. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 6
page 2
2. Draft Agreement on the Importation of Insecticides (GATT/CP/79)
The CHAIRMAN outlinded the past developments leading to the in
clusion of this item in the Agenda. Reference was made to the Resolution
adoptd by the Economic and Social Council at its 9th Session, which recommended
that "Governments facilitate as much as possible the freer flow ... of insecti-
cides, raw material and equipment for their production, by measures which they
deem appropriate with regard to tariffs, import and export restrictions".
Pursuant to this recommendation, the world Health Assembly had adopted the
Resolution which was annexed to the letter from the World Health Organization.
Mr. JOHNSEN (New Zealand) thought the information given by the
Chairman served to remove some of the doubts which had been entertained by the
representatives. Apart from the question whether such an agreement was really
necessary (a question he would answer in the negative) the draft as prepared by
the world Health Organization Secretariat contained serious internal incon-
sistencies as well as contradictions to the resolution, especally in regard
to the limitation of the application of the agreement to importation of such
products intended exclusively for use by Public Health authorities. The draft
agreement had been modelld upon the earlier agreement sponsored by UNESCO, but
the former differed substantially from the latter in that the UNESCO agreement
did not contain the aferementioned limitation; and its scope was desirably
narrowed down and clearly defined by the inclusion of definite schedules of the
products Iinvolved. The Contracting Parties which were also represented at the
World Health Organization should make their views known to that Organization.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that the scope of the draft agreement
considerably exceeded that of the World Health Assembly Resolution. While
there might be some doubt whether the objectives of the Resolution would best
be achieved through an international agreement, it would nevertheless not be
appropriate for the Contracting Parties to refuse to examine the project. The
Contracting Parties should examine the proposal and advise the World Health
Organization as to the most convenient method for the achievement of such ob-
jectives, at the same time explaining the difficulties which would be involved
in the adoption of such an agreement.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) felt that the draft agreement which requir
contracting states to undertake to admit, free from duty, the importation of the
four groups of products referred to in Article I thérein, did not represent a
workable foromula. The text followed closely that of the UNESCO Agreement, but
the UNESCO Agreement was made workvable only by the addition of the appropriate
schedules defining what was meant by educational, cultural and scientific goods.
It might be advisable to see whether schedules relating to the four categories
of products referred to in the Agreement dould be drawn up and annexed to the
agreement. The, draft agreement as it now stood, in such vague terms, would
have little prospect of being accepted by any government; governments which
agreed to the principle embodied in the World Health Organization Resolution
would certainly prefer to take independent action rather. than accept an agreement
couched in such general terms. Mr.TONKIN recommended that since tariff experts
were available with most delegations, the question could perhaps. best be en-
trusted to study by a working party, and that delegations should be requested to
make available the services of their experts, the aim being to make improvements
in the draft and to see whether it could be shaped into a sound and workable
instrument .
Mr. BROWN (United States) thought that, apart from giving their
technical advice on the draft agreement, it would also be desirable for the
Contracting Partics to express a judgment as to the degree to which an agreement
of this nature would be of use. He was, therefore, in favour of adopting the
Australian proposal, but the working party should be instructed also to recom-
mend a judgment to be given by the Contracting Parties on the value of such an
agreement. GATT/CP.5/SR.6
page 3
The CHAIRMAN summarizing the discussions, pointed out that the
consensus of opinion seemed to indicate that, the Contracting Partics should not
refuse to give assistance to the World Health Organization, which had asked for
technical advice, and that it would also be appropriate for the Contracting
Parties to exprese their views on the usefulness of such an agreement. The
CHAIRMAN therefore proposed that a working party be set up and that, in order
that the knowledge and experience of the two institutions might supplement each
other, the working: party should invite a representative of the World Health
Organization to participate in its discussions.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON(Denmark) was doubtful whether the Contracting
Parties should act on a request from an official of another international
organization without a formal request from its authorised organ. ln the present
case, the Acting Director-General of the World Health Organization, if he desired
technical advice, could perhaps have consulted privately wiith the secretariat of
the Contracting Partics instead of transmitting a formal request on behalf of
that Organization.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Working Party should bear these
points in mind when deliberating the matter.
Mr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) emphasised that in the view of his
delegation, the draft agreement in its present terms could be judged forthwith
to be unacceptable to any government. So the Working Party should be instructed.
not only to deal with the draft but also to give advice as to the Procedure which
would be appropriate and effective in furthering the objectives of the World
Health Organization, Moreover, any advice given by the Contracting Parties
should concern not only the dispositions to be taken by importing countries but
also those by exporting countries.
In reply to questions advanced by certain representatives, the
.CHAIRMAN said that any advice given by the Contracting Parties would be given
without in any way limiting the freedom of action of governments as regards any
agreement eventually presented to them by the World Health Organization 1or con-
sideration. He invited any representatives who had, views on the subject to
get in touch with the working party.
The CHAlRMAN then proposed, and the Contracting, Parties approved,
the foIlowing terms of reference and membership for the Working Party:
"To consider the letter from the World Health Organization
and the draft agreement annexed thereto, and to submit to
the Contracting Parties a draft reply embodying appropriate
technical advice, as to the feasibility of the agreement pro-
posed and such improve,emts as would appear desirable to
introduce in the procedure suggested to achieve the objectives
of the World Health Organization in this field".
Members: Australia Sweden
Brazil United Kingdom
France United States
Italy
3. Brazilian Internal Taxes (GATT/CP. 3/42, para. 17 GATT/CP. 4/SR. 21. GATT/CP/72)
The CHAlRMAN explained the purpose of this agenda item by drawing
attention to the information contained in GATT/CP/72.
Mr.CASTROMENEZES (Brazil) cpnfirmed the information that the
executive department of the Brazilian Government had submiitted to Parliament
on June 2nd a message requesting the approval of a draft Iaw designed for the
purpose of adjusting the discriminatory internal taxes which had been judged
by the Contracting Parties to be in conflict with the priniciples of Article IlI GATT/CP. 5/SR. 6
page 4
of the Agreement and the Protocol of Provisional Application. In view of the
length of the draft law, the Brazilian delegation would request that the Con-
tracting Parties set up a working party to examine it with a view to advising
as to the adequacy of the measures preposed and their conformity with the
relevant provisions of the General Agreement.
Mr. CASTRO MENEZES further explained that, this year being an
election year in Brazil in which members of the legislature had to spend much
time in campaigning, the proposed law had not received consideration by Parlia-
ment. He hoped, however, that it would receive consideration in the near
future.
M. LECUYER (France) said he was satisfied with the explanation as
regards the delay on the part of Brazil to take final action, but pointed cut
that this was the third time the question had come up for consideration, He
agreed to the request of the representative of Brazil for the setting up of a
working party which would consider measures for the rectification of the present
rather unsatisfactory situation.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United kingdom) was doubtful what terns of
reference could be given to the working party. Would the working party be
asked to recommend medifications to the Brazilian bill, which it was understood
was already before the Brazilian Congress?
Mr. CASTRO MENEZES (Brazil) replied that the purpose would be for
the Contracting Parties to ascertain whether the contents of the draft law
adequately met the complaints. The matter had not been settled up to now,
chiefly because of the involved procedures required for the passing of a legis-
lation, and the Brazilian Government had done its best to meet the wishes of
the Contracting Parties.
M. LECUYER (France) said that, while he understood the difficulties,
his delegation would hope that the agenda item could be disposedl of before the
end of this session.
Mr. SCMMITT (New Zealand) thought it was awkward to suggest that a
ruling, could be given by the Contracting Parties on the merits of domestic
legislation. If the Brazilian delegation would make available the necessary
data and consult With the other contracting parties interested in the matter
including France, satisfactory adjustment might be reached between these con-
tracting parties without the help pf a working party. It might, therefore,
be mere expeditious for the Contracting Parties merely to take note of the
facts and ask the Brazilian delegation to consult direct with the affected
contracting parties. The item could be kept on the agenda and the Contracting
Parties could return to it at the end of the consultation between the interested
parties.
Mr.BROWN (United States) thought that since a question of principle
was involved, and since the question had been examined by the Contracting Parties
as a group, it would be appropriate that the matter be again examined by the
Contracting Parties.
Mr. CASTRO MENEZES (Brazil) thought that it would be contrary to
procedure under Article XXIII if direct consultation were carried out once
again at this stage.
Mr. RElSKAN (Canada) was of the opinion that although the, Con-
tracting Parties should always give such guidance as was requested by any
contracting party, such an obligation did not necessarily involve the procedure
suggested - i. e., consideration by a working party. In the present case, how-
ever, as both parties had agrred to such a procedure it would perhaps be advis-
able to set up a working party as requested.
Mr. SCHMITT ( New Zealand) thought that the Contracting Parties
would be establishing, a dangerous precedent if they proceeded to pass judgment
on a draft legislation which had already, been submtted by a government to its GATT/CP 5/SR. 6
page 5
legislature. It should therefore be made very clear in the present case that
the examination of the Brazilian bill had been carried out at the explicit
request of the contracting party concerned.
M. LECUYER (Francc) suggested that as the question had been sub-
mitted to the Contracting Parties and studied by a Working Party in the past,
it could be regarded merely as a continuation of the unfinished work of a
past session. The French delegation had not ventured to suggest any other
procedure because, if for no other reason, the- Brazilian delegation had thought
this was the most expeditious way of dealing with the question.
Mr. CASTRO MENEZES (Brazil). said that the Brazilian delegation
believed that its government had done all in its power to regularise the dis,
crepancies, and that the proposed legislation contained provisions which
adequately met the views of the Contracting Parties. The present request was
calculated to make manifest its attitude and to acquaint the Contracting parties
with the measures its government had adopted. Either course proposed would be
acceptable to the Brazilian delegation.
M. LECUYER (France) pointed to some possible confusions in the
discussions. It had been understood by the French delegation that the Brazilian
delegation had requested the setting up of a working party in order to make known
what had been proposed by its government in response to the recommendations of the
Contracting Parties. It had not been contempleted that changes in the legislation
should be proposed by the Contracting Parties to the Brazilian government.
: Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) was not sure whether Article XXllI was applicable
in the present case, but believed that theo remarks made by the New Zealand dele-
gate were pertinent and deserved attention. An impasse Would be created if the
working party should propose any recommendations which happened to be unacceptable
to the Brazilian delegation. In his opinion, the best procedure would be to
request that the two delegations carry cut consultations and see whether the
Brazilian bill was satisfactory to the directly affected contracting party or
parties.
Mr. OLDlNI (Chile) said, that since the Brazilian delegation had no
objection to either solution, it would be up to the Contracting Parties to make a
choice. In his opinion, the fact that the Brazilian Government had asked the
Contracting Parties for technical advice ruled out any question of sovereighty.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the situation, said that the Brazilian
delegation had proposed that a working; party, be set up - a procedure whicih had
received the support of the representatives of the United Kingdom and France;
on the other hand, the representatives of New Zealand and Italy had drawn
attention to the danger of creating a precedent in which the Contracting Parties
regarded themselves competent to consider a draft legislation which was before a
national parliament. It was up to the Contracting Parties to decide which was
the more appropriate course to take.
A vote was taken, and the Contracting Parties approved by 18 votes
to 3 the proposal to set up a working, party to study tihe Brazilian draft legis-
lation. Upon the proposal of the CHAIRMAN the following terms of reference
and composition for the working party were adopted:
"As requested by the delegation of Brazil, to examine the
draft legislation prepared by the Government of Brazil, for
presentation to its legislature, which legislation is intended
to settle the matters covered by item 17 of the Agenda, and to
advise on the conformity of such draft legislation with the
relevant provisions of the General Agreement and the Protocol
of Provisional Application". GATT/CP. 5/SR. 6
page 6
Chairman:Dr. A. ARGYROPOULCS ( Greece)
Members: BraZil Greece
ChiIe United Kingdom
France United States
4. Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate (GATT/CP. 4/39)
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the last paragraph of the report of
Working Party G of the Fourth Session, by the terms of which a report would be
submitted at this session by the two Governments concerned.
Mr. TONKIN(Australia) stated that the Governments of Australia and
Chile had entered into consultation in accordance with the recommendations con-
tained in the report referred to by the Chairman. The Australian delegation
had now been informed by its Government that satisfactory agreement had been
reached between the two Governments. The tems of the agreement had been filed
with the secretariat and there would therefore seem to be no need for any further.
study of the item.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) confirmed the statement made by the Australian
representative. The Chilean Government had accepted the terms of agreement.
AIthough the Chilean request had not been met in full his Government nad con-
sidered them satisfactory as a whole. The Contracting Parties should, therefore,
new consider the matter concluded.
Mr. BROWN (United States) requested that the details of the agreement
be made available to the contracting, parties, as they, might be interested to see
the results of the negotiations.
.~~~~~~~~~~~~
gheem wojd anncnced that a cory of the ter:. of airec.:nt vmuld
be supplied. to each delegation fcr reference. He expressed. to the two delegations,
on behalf Of the Contreeting, Pedties, satisfaction that this matter had becn settlcL.
Ifter a fuxtheewdiscussion on the order of business for the ne.t fcv
'.etin-s, the -,ioixg rose at 6.45 p. .
9 ' |
GATT Library | jy160zh6161 | Summary Record of the Sixth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, February 27, 1950 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 27, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 27/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.6 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jy160zh6161 | jy160zh6161_90270082.xml | GATT_142 | 1,195 | 7,617 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.4/SR.6
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des
Nations, Geneva, on
Monday, February 27, 1950
at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. Final Adoption of the Agenda.
2. 1950 Tariff Negotiations.
1. Final Adoption of the Agenda.
Mr. DESAI (India) felt it would be opportune at this
stage to adjourn the discussion and ask the Delegation of the
United States whether they would be prepared to accept the
proposals of the Delegation of the United Kingdom or of the
Delegation of New Zealand. As representative of India he
would prefer the New Zealand proposal that items 14 and 15
be combined into one item concerned with the examination of
Quantitative Restrictions, without any mention of restrictions
on imports or on exports. He feared the consequences of
bringing such a matter before parliaments, thus jeopardising
the delicate balance insituted by the provisional application
of the Agreement. Contracting Parties had .to face the fact
that there was a section of opinion believing that the function
of the Agreement was to prevent the development of under-
developed areas, Nothing should be done to give support to
this opinion.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) appreciated the
effort which had been made to meet their desire, but thought
that both the proposals of the United Kingdom and of New
Zealand inadvertently failed to reach the heart of the matter.
He thought the present meeting was perhaps too large to
consider matters of form, and agreed to an adjournment in
order to give the United States time to recast their proposals,
bearing in mind the points raised in the meeting.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) said he had no objection to the
proposal of adjournment, but wished to record his disagreement
with an earlier statement made by the United States Delegate
that the terms of Article XXV were sufficiently broad to
cover a general examination of export restrictions. GATT/CP.4/SR.6
Page 2.
the
It was agree by/Contracting Parties: to adjourn the
discussion of items 14 and 15 until the parties agreed to a
formulation which could be considered at the following meeting,
in the course of which the discussion of item 13 would also
be resumed.
2 . 1950 Tariff Nogotiations. (ii) Communication from Czechoslovakia re participation; are
fman~~(eATQ/Ty.2/4 A.T 1.)IL4V.
The meeting agreed to the request of Dr. BENES (Czecho-
lovakia) to postpone the discussion until the end of the week,
pending the arriva of' the Head of the Czechoslovak Delegation.
(iev) Dtearmin ion f' -Venue (GAT.4CP ~/2: and Addenda).
The Executive Secretary informed the meeting that the
information supplied in respect of Geneva as a possible site
of the 1950 Tariff Negotiations was rather less complete than
that supplied for the other proposed sites because the
uncertainty about international activities in Geneva in the
e rly.part of 1951 made it difficul to-obtain firm commit-
ments. He added that the Assistant Director of the.European
Office of United Nations would now b inza better position,
on the strength of the latest information, to explain what
facilities could be provided by the Palais des Nations.
The meeting agreed to hear the Assistant Director of the
European Office.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kimgdor) hen. illustrated the
advantage of' Torquay, insisting on the care with which the
site had been chosen by the Government of the United Kim.do&.
He assuthe red/Contracting Parties that his Government would not
have made the.prolosa if' hey-had not been sure that Torquay
would meet with he..full approva of' the participants in the
Tariff Negotiat.ons,
Mr. EVANS (Assistant Director of the European Office of
the United Nations) said that since the Tariff Negotiations
had been held in the Palais des Nations in 1947, available
office space had been much curtail d. -When first approached
by the Executive Secretary they had replied that ome. eighty
offices would be available for the pe io d'ofthe negotiations,
subject to approval from headquarters in Lake Success.
Headquarters, how, ver replied that, owing to the transfer
of the.Secretariat to the new building whicu wo.ld be taking GATT/CP.4/SR. 6.
Page 3.
place in early 1951, it was planned to hold in Geneva all
conferences normally scheduled in New York at that time.
They were even doubtful about the possibility of accommodating
the Tariff Negotiations late in 1950 but ruled out the
possibility of space being available in early 1951.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said that his Government had no
candidate to propose officially. He wished, however, to
support the proposal made by the Municipality of Cannes. He
thought Cannes had the advantage over Torquay as being more
readily accessible by air, land and sea, and that it enjoyed
the very important advantage of having all offices in one
building; as the experience of Annecy had shewn, this was a
most important factor.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy)isaid that the essential characteris-
tics of a site for such a long conference were an agreeable
climate, the combination of all offices in one large building,
easy communications and comfort. All these advantages were
enjoyed by Bordighera. The site had been carefully studied
by the Italian Government, who - he wished to make it clear -
had not advanced the proposal in a spirit of competition with
other contracting parties. His Government was glad to submit
their carefully considered offer for election in the event
that the sites proposed by contracting parties be found lacking
in any of the fundamental requirements.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) asked if other possibilities in
Geneva had been investigated, and the Deputy Executive
Secretary replied that the Authorities of the Canton of Geneva
had offered a building which it was thought would be ready
in September and would provide some 110 offices.
A secret ballot on the choice of the site for the 1950
negotiations gave the following result:
Present and voting 19.
Votes:
Torquay 12
Cannes 4
Geneva 2
Monaco 1
Abstention 1.
Accordingly, Torquay was chosen as the venue for the
1950 Tariff Negotiations. GATT/CP.4/SR.6.
Page 4.
(iii) Proposal by the United Kingdom to revalidate the
Geneva and Annecy Schedules (GATT/CP.4/7)
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) referred to the two letters
from the Government of the United Kingdom reproduced in
document GATT/CP.4/7, and drew the meeting's attention, in
particular, to the note appearing on page 2 of the same docu-
ment which gave the reason which had motivated his Government
Two methods of preserving these Schedules which constitu-
ted the foundations of the Agreement had suggested themselves.
They could be re-negotiated item by item or they could be
re-validated as a whole. The first method was very cumbersome
and might result in upsetting the balance which had been
struck so laboriously. It was the second alternative which
they considered more desirable. Some items might be re-
negotiated, but he assumed, and hoped, that they would be very
few. He suggested for discussion the draft protocol annexed
to the document mentioned, which might be brought into
effect for the countries which accepted it, when approved by
a two-thirds majority. The protocol could stand open for
acceptance after the Torquay negotiations had begun.
The meeting adjourned at 5.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | dh746px4148 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Corrigenda | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 17, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) | 17/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.10/Corr.2 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dh746px4148 | dh746px4148_90270132.xml | GATT_142 | 369 | 2,407 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR.10/Corr. 2
TARIFFS AND TRADE 17 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Fifth Session.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Corrigenda
Page 2, para.2
The statemen of Dr. Van Blankenstein should read as
follows:
"Dr. H. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) said that in view
of the discussion he would no longer oppose the continuation inlnU:tion
eofh . On the contrary, his He egation would en-e ul.ietantsi r-
cretariat wouldreceive allsuqr twoulriassary&L i t? eCWE
t ac huture unofficial s.,:;atioo inform-=eture iisource infor:
be relied upon Haowever, ds many countris. co`tLci
adh he Generareement nowere;t '.Enr Frenchglish cinchor ir
the Secretariat avmight hhte d in iffictryaifficin utilizing
information usually written in lanthgauges on ir. 1
He would,ho t. wevput forieho-the genv-oecrn ge;1eeL
tstnews should le taken from official sources".c Scu
, para.2ara.2 a
tement in paragraph tattiaiade by a: Mr. iceir. Eur
O PBrazil) EnP not by Mr. Castro iTEleniES Brazil). ( .azi
para. 3 - Pa.3ape ement Sir Stephen siof neit(United Kingdom): of t i.:):
Line 12: Ine name" after "..........Proposals" sert "in thr .rp * osa! u and
......."iLe' )zQw " f .I iW
e they were in a 4,lnel }t. "ut :.e .hokb tvc:,tive
ction," and beforeft~'ti.;& '-&.'Ccr t.t* * * bcicre
'aicr o,;(CL~Lu coId-Lt~'
Pai _ ) peara.
ead as follows:T, rf ..r. .J. sctUL&d r
that his Delegation'14A'. A212; k2Jt:S) : Wtati }^.L5
essed by the varioou s g~-encr';J1& z uppnort cf thc. vnr1^ G.
fspadoption ofciair'r *.. t:rt .:'t w :uvoux ^' L.e
of ltic.1k 4 , dele-u.d 6, a.- :cvo.~e& b; z. s.
unnecessary complications without ntion, wz;4 lik};le to C uicti'L .':itkoLLt
attention to ?strVin- an r . oiuJ prr ;tbza1 psc. d.x': a
n", which did nothJXticiL 6, ..ic'h rc'r_. n't \ '.i. Kr; .'itot
d for theeit, i. !ti!t#L{vt tl. tt t>)lkqartk z ti
and, moreover,ac.n.fi.:trutior tf i.i; fat i clv ' 'os ;;x st
f the Chaglticle- 6 ii 1tL CJ.1 rcf>'xt 1o *z 'rticu-
riole t. h; General of ziz.h 'r;cc; to eC, f^i.
e. In the circumstances, therefore,suA~ ree~:icn on Yax'i :
the adoption of these there Articlese ,itf C~l taEibiO~l Cvi.:i!u
suggested"., tti:iz sta. e, ii. ti.u :.m
05'.. U5 an ?? |
GATT Library | jr862gv6447 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Corrigendum | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 15, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 15/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR. 10/Corr. 1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jr862gv6447 | jr862gv6447_90270131.xml | GATT_142 | 345 | 2,383 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
RIT A 10 GArr.TT/CP. 5/SR. l/Corr. 1
TARIFFS AND TRADE 15 November 1950
EITOL. MONLY
CONTBP 7TnJr P 'S
Fifth Sessicr
SUid.!Y RECOPR OF T.E TENTH IEETII
Corrigerdum
?ave 3
Theefrlc.hing corre-tisns should be madc to tne speech of Sir Stephen
iioL. (United Kinwdor)
Line 12: Insert "in thc name" after ".....Proposals" and before
1of the United Stat-s.... "
Line 1: Insert "but orLthe vhole they were in a positive form"
after ".,. pcssible action," and before "and would
contrast...."
Pa.,z2. senond-paragraEL
NKENSTEINr-ntemaee by Dr. J. van Th'NSTIN (Nothirlands) should
red as follows:
"Dr. i-'. 'JAW BLU~Kw 3IN(Netherlands) said that in vie- of the
oisusaioc he wuauld d no longer c:pnse the )tin.tion of the Bulletin.
Cn the ^ontrha`, his cretarizon would ensure tti the Seoemt..rat would
ation ¢ll thE. ^eosoany d9. eLr.ntetiono that in future:unofficial
sCurCCs of irformation nred not be relied upon. However, as many
Agreement were ng tEnthe Gcrnt'an'c4'1 .-rc-remct 1wrcot : english or Fren h
ficuakinj, the io"dtz.riat rrht havc difi'ilty in utilizing original
other than these. written in lares -th~r thcn thceo, He would,
il]CYuat put for..rd the ,Merncrr principle thlc.news should be taken
froa:. offiXcir.l so"
Pa;7
T> statennt mo ae by ;.:iAziz .i.'D (Pan) shi uld red a>s ollos:
":ir. azizz JDelegation clc~eg tiongenerally
views tepressedibny xTrvarious the v-.ri-usspeakers who were not in
cemeal adoption i:Aal clesicof .rtilHls from the -avaHa Charter. Ie
-ioption of Ahadcrts of Arti'le 3, 4 and 6, as proposed by the
egationanwD r-:.tin, nas likelyece carse omplicationscc-..plicatio
ag aout Q rvinpractical purpose. He d awrructicl uw attention to
.tccl1 6, whinh peferOeg to "Th. Cr-anizati n", which d.dlnot eDist,
He reInted out hint the macediry r:quiadm for the idrofistration -o
twis ,otielu *as n~a-cximteet, .nd, .orcover, Article 6 in itself
rcfcrrArtto othof .tfiCles et tho 3hlltcr, n t a11 of which were to
be Aur0.in the. reiceeeraf tgi ecnrr ol A;recment.n Tariffs and Trade.
In ances, cumstn.-n,-ctherlegation dDe.lcg. tin id net favour thc
-c'otion ee these thr-c hrticle at tnis etage, ir thn manner
su r cted. |
GATT Library | sv174vp1204 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay on Wednesday, 8 November 1950 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 11, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/10 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sv174vp1204 | sv174vp1204_90270130.xml | GATT_142 | 3,601 | 23,194 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B.
TARIFFS AND TRADE 11 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGCLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, To-quay
on Wednesday, 8 November 1950 at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Hon, L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. The Continuation of the Trade News Bulletin
(GATT/CP. 5/14)
2. Inclusion in the General Agreement of Articles from
Chapter II of the Havana Charter (GATT/CP. 5/23)
1. The Continuation of the Trade News Bulletin (GATT/CP.5/14)
At the CHAIRMAN'S invitation, Mr. WYNDHAM WHITE (Executive
Secretary) made certain comments and replied to specific questions. He first
expressed gratitude for the generous remarks and helpful. comments made by
representatives. The experiment had been started by the Secretariat in the
belief that a bulletin of this nature might be useful, particularly to the
smaller countries, although it proved to have been welcome also to countries
which had ample information facilities. The chief purpose of the Bulletin
was to bring together and draw attention to items of news .which would be of
interest when viewed in the context of the General Agreement. For instance,
the activities of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation
in connection with the liberalization of European trade were interesting
to the contracting parties in as much as they related to the same subject as
that treated in Article XIV of the Agreement. It was also contemplated
that the Bulletin might eventually develop into an international gazette
in which contracting parties could publish news or measures relating to
their foreign trade; once the continuation of the Bulletin was approved,
an increasing amount of such official material would naturally be included.
If first-hand information were to be inserted, there should be established
a liaison between the Secretariat and officials of governments to ensure
constant consultation on the make-up and development of the Bulletin, and
a date would probably have to be fixed in each month for information to reach
the Secretariat, The Bulletin, being in an experimental stage, had appeared
only in English, but a French version would be issued if its continued
publication on a definitive basis were approved. References to documents and
discussions of the Contracting Parties could not very well be made in the
Bulletin as most of the documents and records were of a restricted or secret
nature, and the Trade News Bulletin was intended for wide circulation. The
Bulletin had been devised primarily for the use ot government officials,
and was not intended to be a means of public information. For that purpose
a number of pamphlets had been issued under the authorisation of the Contracting
Parties which were written in a clear, untechnical way: these had been trans-
lated into a number of languages and had had considerable impact on the public.
With the approval of the Contracting Parties, the Secretariat would publish
further pamphlets giving up-to-date information on the work of the Contracting
Parties. In addition, the Information Officer was in constant contact with
the press to provide accessible information. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 10
Page 2.
The CHAlRMAN felt that the conclusion could e drawn from the
discussions that the Contracting Parties were in favour of the continuation
of the Bulletin on a definitive basis. A small addition in expenditure
would, however, be involved as the Bulletin would hereafter appear in the
two official languages, and the Secretariat should be authorized to publish
further pamphlets for the public, when the occasion arose. A procedure for
the collection of information would be circulated by the Executive Secretary.
Dr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) said that in view of the
discussion he would no longer oppose the continuation of the Bulletin.
On the contrary, his delegation would ensure that the Secretariat would
receive all the necessary documentation so that in future unofficial sources
of information need be relied upon to the least possible extent. However,
as many countries adhering to the General Agreement were not English or
French speaking, the Secretariat might have difficulty in utilizing original
information usually written in languages other than these. He would,
however, but forward the general principle that as far as possible news
should be taken from official sources.
The Contracting Parties approved the continuation of the
Trade News Bulletin on the basis of the remarks made by the Executive
Secretary and the Chairman.
2. Inclusion in the General Agreement of Articles from Chapter
II of the Havana Charter dealing with Employment and Economic
Activity (GATT/CP.5/23)
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) introduced the proposal of his delegation
and drew attention to the fact that the General Agreement, when introduced
in the Autumn of 1947, was, in the expectation of all concerned, a
transitional instrument to be in force only for a short time, pending the
coming into force of the International Trade Organization Charter,
It was on this assumption that countries had agreed to operate an agreement
which did not contain all articles of the Geneva draft Charter. In fact,
the majority of the countries were understood to have favoured the
inclusion in the Agreement of articles other than those relating directly
to commercial policy, and only a few countries had opposed it. The
belief held by most countries that the International Trade Organization
would be set up in a short tire was evident in the provisions of paragraph
4 of the unamended version of Article XXIX. Now that three years had
elapsed since the General Agreement was drawn up, without any prospect
of the Havana Charter securing sufficient reA;ifications in the foreseeable
future for it to enter into force, the General Agreement had gradually
come into a new stage of its existence, acquiring a semi-permanent character.
In considering what provisions should be included in the Agreement in
addition to the existing ones, it had been pointed out that provisions of
the Havana Charter per se should not necessarily be introduced, but each
article should be considered on its merits. On the other hand, no consideration
should be given to any provision whose inclusion might prejudice the
ratification of the Charter, although this had not been suggested by any
contracting party.
The Norwegian delegation proposed the introduction of Articles 3,
4 and 6 of the Charter into the General Agreement, because it believed that
the principles of commercial policy should not indefinitely, be practised
without regard to binding obligations relating to employment and economic
activity. The furtherance of international trade is not an end in itself, GATT/CP. 5/SR. 10
Page 3.
but a means of achieving increased production, higher standards of living,
full and productive employment and thereby economic and social progress
for all the people in the world. These aims, which were not only laid
down in the Havana Charter but also in the Charter of the United Nations,
could not be achieved if the provisions relating to commercial policy
were applied without regard to the principles of employment and economic
activity. Furthermore, since the inception of the General Agreement,
certain countries had adhered to the Convention for European Economic Co-
operation, which pledged its members not only to promote production and to
develop interchange of goods and services, but also to provide full
employment and maintain a high and stable level of economic activity
whilst avoiding or countering inflation. The Preamble to the Convention,
and Articles IV, VII and VIII thereof, were modelled on the provisions of
the Havana Charter. The General Agreement, which was of a world wide
nature, should also include such provisions so that there would be equi-
librium between the obligations assumed by contracting parties which were
members of the Organizition for European Economic Co-operation and the
obligations of' those which were not, and one should like to assume that
no contracting party would object to the principles embodied in Articles
5, 4 and 6 of the Havana Charter. The Norwegian delegation, while agreeing
to the principle that piecemeal supersession of the provisions of the
Charter would be undesirable, was of the opinion that the inclusion of
certain articles in the Agreement had become necessary because the Agreement
had by now acquired a semi-permanent character.
Mr. de CASTRO MENEZES (Brazil) gave his full support to the
Norwegian proposal and complimented the Norwegian delegation on the clarity
and right emphasis of the supporting statement. The Brazilian government
had always considered the General Agreement as in instrument supplementary
to the Havana Charter, and he agreed to the assertion that the aims and
objectives of the Charter could not be achieved if the principles relating
to commercial policy were applied without regard to principles of employment
and economic activity. The introduction of these articles was, if anything,
not early enough, but this was a case to which could suitably be applied
the axiom 'better late than never'.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that the statement
made by the Norwegian representative left little to be added. However,
special attention should be drawn to the recent Resolution of the Economic
and Social Council relating to employment and economic activity, which
should be carefully studied in the context of the present proposal. Whilst
it was right that the inclusion of a particular passage in a certain
document did not per se necessarily warrant its inclusion in another, there
was no reason why a good passage in its own right should not be considered
for inclusion in the Agreement. In supporting the proposal his delegation
had no intention of prejudging the future of the General Agreement or of the
Havana Charter. The preamble of the General Agreement contained references
which were derived originally from the Proposals of the United States
Government on Trade and Employment. The passages in question contained little
particular injunction for possible action, and would contrast strikingly
with the heavy negations in the General Agreement relating to commercial
policy. Full employment was one of the chief concerns of the United Kingdom
Government, and among international meetings in which his Government had
participated were such renowned ones as the Brotton Woods, Philadelphia,
San Francisco, Lake Success, Geneva and Havana Conferences, as well as the
Organization for European Economic Co-operation. One might say that as the GATT/CP. 5/SR. 10
Page 4.
principles had been accepted explicitly in so many international conventions,
there was no need to burden the General Agreement with yet another statement.
But the General Agreement was an instrument actually and effectively in
force, and the principles should be acknowledged in its context. In the
opinion of the United Kingdom Delegation, the Norwegian Delegation had done
a good service to the Contracting Parties by drawing attention to this
necessity.
M. LARRE (France) said that the articles in question were among
those held in high esteem by the French Government in view of their social
significance; the principles embodied therein should no doubt be borne in
mind by all governments when formulating or administering their commercial
policy. However, the French delegation was not in favour of lifting
individual articles from the Charter to be included in the Agreement.
Attention should be drawn to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article XXIX,
and if these were not sufficient to ensure the fullest observance of the
principles of the Havana Charter, steps should be taken to define more
precisely the obligations under that paragraph. The experience of the
French representative at various international meetings however, had shown
that countries were aware of the obligations imposed on them by that
paragraph. The French delegation therefore believed that a resolution
to re-enforce the obligation under Article XXIX: I might meet the purposes
of the Norwegian proposal, and this would not constitute a substantial
departure from that proposal.
Mr. BROWN (United States) pointed out that the proposal, if
adopted, would involve substantial amendments to the Agreement, and on
that account the Contracting Parties should give careful consideration
to the question of timing. The "Proposals" first put forward by the
United States Government, with the support of the United Kingdom, had
contained provisions embodying the substance of the present Article 3 of
the Havana Charter, and this should prove to the Contracting Parties that
the United States Government was sympathetic to the principle of full
employment and understood its importance. The present proposal was to
introduce into the Agreement provisions dealing with a related, but
nevertheless different, subject. His delegation would suggest (a) that
the general presumption at present was against piecemeal amendment, and
(b) that there existed already in the Agreement a provision which should
meet the desire of the Norwegian representative, Any piecemeal amendment
of the Agreement would be undesirable in principle and in fact would
create great difficulties for certain governments in relation to their
legislatures. Besides, Chapters VI and VII were of even greater interest
to certain contracting parties and their inclusion in the Agreement would
be regarded as desirable by even more countries. But in fact, there were
more international activities dealing with the purposes and objectives of
Chapter II than with the provisions of these other two Chapters. Bearing
in mind these activities, including the very recent resolution of the
Economic and Social Council, the contracting parties should agree that there
was no urgency for the consideration of such amendments. One might argue
that such amendments could be regarded as independent changes in the Agreement
made without reference to the Havana Charter, but however they might be
technically regarded at this meeting, people outside the Conference would
inevitably consider them to be what was clearly indicated by the present title
of the Agenda item. In view of all these considerations it would be doing
a great disservice to the General Agreement if such action were taken at
this time. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 10
Page 5.
Mr. DI NOLA (Italy) said that his government favoured whole-
heartedly the principles embodied in the articles under consideration,
which principles had indeed become an integral part of modern civilization.
The population and labour conditions in Italy would seem to make these
principles more important for her than for any other country. However,
the Italian delegation would submit that this was not the time for such
action. If the incorporation of these articles had the slightest effect
of hampering the future of the Havana Charter, it should be regarded as
premature and must by all means be avoided. Such action should be
deferred until such time as there would be a clearer view of the prospects
of the Havana Charter.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) said that the views of the Australian
delegation on the questions relating to employment and economic activity
were so well-known that they required no repetition. However, apart
from its general opposition to piecemeal supersession, his delegation
felt that the present was not the correct time for the proposed action.
At the Fourth Session there had been opposition by certain governments
to the proposal that Chapter VI be put into provisional application,
because it was thought that such action would prejudice the ratification
of the Havana Charter, and because the urgency of that question was
disputable. At the same Session the Contracting Parties had decided that
the action required under Article XXIX: 3 be taken at some future time.
It was clearly, therefore, the general view that amendments to the
Agreement should be dealt with as a whole rather than piecemeal. At
this juncture, the Australian delegation would therefore oppose the
Norwegian proposal.
Dr. LOPEZ-FRESQUET (Cuba) felt that he could not see the
consistency between the principles advocated by the Norwegian delegation
and the concrete proposal it had put forward. To adopt three Articles
from Chapter II and leave the rest alone would take cut from the group
of provisions in Chapter II the balance which had been thought to have
been achieved in that Chapter after prolonged discussions at Geneva and
Havana, and he could see no reasons why Articles2, 5 and 7 should not
also be included. The Cuban government, being the original proponent
of Article 7, would be inconsistent with itself if it were now to agree
to the Norwegian proposal. It was also felt that more time ought to be
allowed for governments to consider ratification of the Havana Charter.
Moreover, the inclusion or exclusion of these articles in the General
Agreement would affect little the real obligations of the Contracting
Parties as long as the Agreement was only provisionally applied.
Mr. DESAI (India) felt that Article XXIX: 3 actually laid down
the priniciple that the Agreement, if need be, must be amended as a whole and
should not be tampered with piecemeal or lightheartedly. By the terms of
Article XXIX: 1, all contracting parties were generally committed to the
principles of Chapters I - VI and IX of the Havana Charter and not merely
to those of one or two Articles.
Dr. BOTHA (Union of South Africa) pointed to the heavy and'
complicated obligtsocns wilch the Agreement had already ipoxeodoin the
Contracting Parties, wich ass ect had not been fully stdlecd or clearly
disentangled. The ocntracting Parties had had eocg,h difficulty in limiting
the scp:e and duration of their Sessions. Additonal o-liga toins would
certainly extend even further the legrth of these Sessions, and for countries GATT/CP. 5/SR. 10
Page 6.
outside Europe, and especially for those from afar, great hardship would be
caused by such extensions. The question of employment and economic
activity had been attended to by a number of international organizations and
Specialised Agencics; there would seem to be no need for the Contracting
Parties to extend their field of interest so as to necessitate the
inclusion of still more special experts in their delegations. The
Contracting Parties, above all, should prevent irrelevant elements from
creeping into the Agreement if it were their wish to keep the Agreement a
workable instrument.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that the Canadian delegation was
always prepared to examine a proposal on its merits. It had, however,
not been convinced by the arguments advanced by the Norwegian representative.
There was clearly no urgency in taking the proposed action because all
contracting parties had undertaken to abide by the principles of certain
chapters of the Havana Charter by virtue of Article XXIX:. 1 of the
Agreement. The arguments advanced by the South African representative
regarding the work confronting the Contracting Parties incidentally lent
weight to the Canadian proposal on the need for arrangements for the
continuing administration of the General Agreement which had been placed
on the agenda.
Mr. KARTADJOEMENA (Indonesia) thought that further incorporation
of Charter provisions into the Agreement would lessen the chance of the
Havana Charter itself being ratified, and it would be advisable to wait for
the opportune time for an over-all change.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) said that the New Zealand delegation
had the same opinion as that of other delegations on the question of timing.
The Norwegian delegation rendered a useful service to the Contracting Parties
by drawing their attention to the important objectives of full employment and
economic activity. The provisions of Articles 4 and 6 were particularly
relevant to the balance-of-payment provisions of the Agreement, However,
as clear and definite obligations had been assumed by contracting parties
under Articles XXIX: 1, these principles were already substantially in
force; there was no need to take action with respect to specific provisions.
The New Zealand delegation would therefore give its support to the purposes
behind the proposal, but would submit that there was no need to incorporate
those specific provisions.
Mr. AHMAD (Pakistan) felt that the adoption of particular
articles was likely to cause unnecessary complications without serving any
very useful purpose. For example, Article 6, with its reference to "the
Organization", if included in the Agreement might involve special legislation
to be passed for certain contracting parties.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway), concluding the debate, said he had
observed an agreement on the importance of observing principles of employment
and economic activity embodied in the articles in question. It was generally
agreed that the provisions of the General Agreement should be interpreted in
the light of these principles by virtue of the provisions of Article XXIX: 1.
Taking up the point made by certain representatives that yet more time should
be allowed for ratification of the Charter, Mr. Melander thought that if there
was only a slight chance of the Charter coming into force in the foreseeable
future, contracting parties could not reasonably be expected to wait for an
indefinite period during which the General Agreement would be applied in fact
on an almost permanent basis. Abiding by the views of the majority, and GATT/CP. 5/SR. 10
Page 7.
agreeing with the representative of India that the action referred to in
Article XXIX: 3 for global amendment of the Agreement had not been put off
indefinitely, Mr. MELANDER said he would not press for a vote on the
proposal.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the discussions, pointed to the
concensus of opinion that this was not the right time to consider the
inclusion of these Articles in the Agreement. The discussion, however, had
served a very useful purpose in drawing attention to the significance
of the provisions of Article XXIX. It had brought out clearly that
paragraph 1 of Article XXIX did impose a definite obligation on the part of
the Contracting Parties to observe to the fullest extent of their executive
authority the general principles of chapters I to VI and IX of the Havana
Charter, and that paragraph 3 of Article XXIX still remained a definite
obligation on the part of the Contracting Parties which required them to
meet to agree whether the Agreement should be amended, supplemented or
maintained, even though it had not been possible for the meeting to take
place by the prescribed date.
The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m.
E ' |
GATT Library | ys189ny3733 | Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Thursday, 2 March, 1950 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 7, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR/10 and GATT/CP.4/SR.8-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ys189ny3733 | ys189ny3733_90270091.xml | GATT_142 | 2,273 | 14,143 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED
LIMITED C
TARIFFS AND TRADE
GATT/CP. 4 /SR/10
CONTRACTING PARTIES 7 March 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 2 March, 1950 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Consideration of Quantitative Restrictions
on Imports and Exports (cont.)
Consideraion of Quantitative Restrictions on Imports and
Exports (cont.). (GATT/CP.4/13, 14 and 17)
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) said his Delegation had followed
with great interest the statement of the representative of the
United States at the previous meeting, and asked whether it
could be circulated for further study.
On the protective effect of import restrictions he wished
to make a few remarks arising out of his own government's
experience. When in 1948 South Africa had to resort to import
control, their task was to elaborate a system of restrictions
which would take due account of the fundamental requirement of
the South African economy, which was that costs of production
should be kept as low as possible. This consideration was of
primary importance to the gold-mining industry, They were
consequently at great pains to avoid as far as was possible any
protection of domestic industries. It was in the light of
their experience that he drew the attention of the Contracting
Parties to the difficulties arising from the fact that an
element of protection was naturally inherent in any form of
import restrictions. For this reason, while not wishing to
convey the impression that the subject should not be considered,
he thought it useful to emphasise the need for great caution in
an investigation of this uncharted territory.
With the agreement of Mr. GRADY (United States of America)
the meeting agreed to the circulation of the United States'
statement,
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) assured the meeting that his
Delegation was fully prepared to co-operate in any action
designed to ensure that the GATT was observed both in letter
and spirit. Proof of their attitude was afforded by the GATT/CP.4/SR/10
Page 2.
extremely full exposition submitted by his Government in reply
to the questionnaire under Article XIV, Paragraph 1(g). He
suggested however, that contracting parties be very clear
about the nature of their investigation which should be severely
practical and objective and should not endeavour to extend or
elaborate the letter of the Agreement. Some suggestions con-
tained in the United States' statement directed towards inter-
pretations of the Agreement, made him feel somewhat uneasy.
The process of legislation within the framework of the Agreement
had gone as far as possible, and they should now direct their
efforts towards building up a body of case law, rather than to
writing any further provisions into the Agreement, which might
well re-open to discussion the whole text.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) pointed out that quantitative re-
strictions were merely a tool of the economic policy of a
country, which policy was determined by circumstances. In his
country, as a result of the ravages of the war, their quanti-
tative restrictions had been directed towards the furthering
of investment, to a point where the inflow of consumer goods
was reduced to a mere trickle. His Government fully agreed that
quantitative restrictions should be abolished as soon as the
balance of payments permitted, but the large gap between
Norwegian imports and exports had only been bridged thanks to
ERP aid, and, further, the progress of investment was now en-
dangered by the liberalisation of trade prescribed by OEEC.
If they expended their small buying power on consumer goods the
rate of capitilisation would be slowed down and the goal of
viability would become more distant.
He considered that liberalisation at too fast a pace might
create similar effects in other countries. It might also
engender unemployment, the avoidance of which was one of the
objectives of the Charter and of the Agreement. He was doubtful
whether the Working Party could make much progress in this most
difficult problem, but he agreed that an exchange of views would
be very useful.
Mr. JAYASURIYA (Ceylon) recalled that many delegates, in
discussing the inclusion of this item in the Agenda, had felt
that the investigation was not in accordance with the terms of
the Agreement, and that the inclusion of this item had been
agreed only on the condition that the investigation be limited
to certain terms of reference. He said that the emphasis in the
discussion at the previous meeting had been laid upon a liberal
interpretation of these terms, but it was his understanding that GATT/CP .4/SR/l0.
Page 3.
they should be strictly adhered to. No one would quarrel with
the argument that multilateral trade was desirable; it was not;
however, an end in itself, but a means to an end. The ultimate
end of the Agreement was the raising of standards of living, full
employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real
income and effective demand, and the development and full use
of the resources of the world. The disruptions caused by the
war, the clash of ideologies, the birth of new nations and the
consequent need for the development of the resources of the
latter, were creating a new pattern. If this new pattern did
not conform to the terms of the Agreement it was not the pattern
which should be altered but the Agreement. They had looked
upon Article XVIII as an instrument designed to promote economic
development, whereas it now looked as though its operation were
directed to act as a brake. He hoped the Working Party would
bear in mind this new situation and its requirements.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) said that his Delegation was aware
both of the need to investigate quantitative restrictions and
of the danger that such investigation might go further than was
intended. They were particularly interested in the ways and
means of relaxing quantitative restrictions. This was a problem
with which they had had to cope by facing the difficulties
inherent in a relaxation of controls which had inevitably pro-
vided a measure of shelter to certain industries. He agreed with
the representative of South Africa on the difficulty of separa-
ting the protective effect of measures designed to safeguard the
balance of payments. He thought, however, that, by facing up
to these difficulties, they had successfully overcome them.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) felt that the discussion showed that
they were concerned with a very broad problem, and the particular
problem before them was but one aspect. He recalled that several
speakers had found it necessary to relate their present question
to other questions which were under discussion by the Contracting
parties and by other bodies. In so far as Australia was con-
cerned, they had tended to rely on measures other than quanti-
tative restrictions to assist the development of the country,
but, to safeguard their balance of payments, they had been
forced to impose restrictions particularly on the import of goods
from hard currency areas.It was inevitable that if import
restrictions were applied with any severity local industry should
attempt to supply the home market, and though he was fully pre-
pared to discuss the problem, he did not think anything could be
done about it. He considered that the duties of the Working GATT/CP.4/SR/10.
Page 4.
Party were to examine the problem in the light of the provisions
of the Agreement, and to recommend action to make possible the
review of the general disequilibrium of world trade as prescribed
by Article XII, paragraph 4.
In connection with other recommendations which the Working
Party might make he shared the view of others who thought the
Working Party might go beyond its mandate. He said it was
becoming clearer every day that the world was confronted with
deep-rooted problems other than those arising out of a mere
cyclical disturbance. There were the problems referred to by the
representative of Ceylon and the situation of Western Europe
which had been with them since the first world war. In Europe re-
pe>s,. .: d movements of gold had only temporarily stopped the
gap which was widely opened by the second world war. The
problem, therefore, went so far beyond the general provisions
of the .Agreement that any attempt on the part of the Working.
Party to extend its terms of reference should be resisted.
Moreover, other bodies were engaged in general studies. In
conclusion he felt that the terms of reference as drafted should
only guide the Working Party in an endeavour to make more
effective the code of practice set out in the Agreement.
Mr. DESAI (India) thought that a very difficult task had
been set to the Working Party, whose terms of reference, he
felt, had been stretched beyond the scope of the Agreement. It
should, in his opinion, avoid the temptation to investigate
problems which did not fall under the Agreement and limit itself
to reviewing and analysing quantitative restrictions in a posi-
tive and constructive spirit, in the light of the Agreement and
of their economic and social backgrounds. Then, in relation to
Article XII, paragraph 4(b), it should endeavour to explain how
such restrictions could be relaxed and mitigated But above all
it should bear in mind the fundamental aims of the General
Agreement as set out in the preamble, and not investigate the
rigid adherence of each measure to the letter of the articles.
The Agreement should not come to be looked upon as a strait-
jacket. Principles remained alive as long as they were adapted
to changing circumstances and should never be allowed to lag
behind the times.
Mr. GRADY (United States of America) wished to make it
clear that he had had no intention, when he spoke at the previous
meeting, to suggest any broadening of the Working Party's terms
of reference; he had only wished to oppose restrictive inter-
pretations. In reply to the representative of the United Kingdom GATT/CP.4/SR/10.
Page 5.
he wished to give the assurance that he did not propose to
introduce any new provisions, but only to urge consideration of
what should be done to improve the situation, and in reply to
the representative of Australia, he agreed it was difficult to
isolate the protective effects of measures taken to safeguard
the balance of payments. This was certainly true of a number
of measures, though not necessarily of all. Viewed over time,
it might be found that some such measures had fulfilled their
function and that their continuation served merely a protective
purpose; for example, in the United States there were industries
which would have been justified in claiming to be sheltered for
promotional reasons a century ago, which strongly opposed today,
in their full development, any relaxation of the protection they
enjoyed. He also agreed with the representative of Australia
that the Working Party should not be over-ambitious, but it
should also avoid the danger of a limited and sterile discussion.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) was gratified to find contracting
parties generally agreed on considering quantitative restrictions
as a necessary evil for some time to come. Against the terms
of reference of the Working Party he had no complaints, and
expressed his readiness to supply whatever information might be
required. For the Working Party's guidance, he proposed to
outline the policy of Pakistan, not with the purpose of defending
their measures, but with the hope of receiving advice.
Quantitative restrictions were inherited by his country
from India and were dictated, then to India, now to Pakistan,
by their characteristic economy based on the export of a few
essential commodities, the scarcity of which made it necessary
to allocate quotas among buyers. As the situation improved,
they had decided to make a start on the way to de-restriction
by tackling cotton - a product which was in a better statistical
position in world trade. This relaxation had resulted in large
scale buying by a country - not a contracting party - at a level
of prices so high that regular buyers were driven out of the
market. He drew the attention of the Contracting Parties to
the fact that the re-imposition of export quotas which they had
thereby been compelled to institute, was most certainly not
dictated by balance of payments or protectionist considerations.
The measure actually ran counter to the financial interests of
Pakistan and of its producers, but was taken to safeguard the
interests of their regular customers. In the light of this
experience they had not yet abolished all quantitative restric-
tions on exports. GATT/CP.4/SR/10.
Page 6
Control of imports had also been relaxed, but the setback
suffered by their exports following upon the recent devaluation
of currencies had necessitated a review of policy in order to
safeguard their balance of payments. Although they would not
wish to waive their right to promote industry in the future,
their present measures had no protective character. If they had
had to resort to bilateral agreements, it was because they had
found certain discriminatory price practices used against them
with the aim of disrupting their economy. Moreover, : & 3.
obvious that, when faced with the withdrawal of other buyers
'from their market; they should agree to purchase from those
buyers who remained faithful to them. He was sure these measures
had an ephemeral character, and that when resorted to for the
purpose of rescuing an economy from destruction, they should not
be condemned on long-term grounds.
If the principles with which they all agreed, had not been
strictly followed in the details of their policy, he pleaded
that account be taken of their earnestness in pursuing the
desirable ultimate objectives while struggling for survival.
The meeting adjourned at 12.50 p.m. |
GATT Library | hd121td2156 | Summary Record of the Third Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England on Friday, 3 November 1950 at 3.00 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 6, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.3 and GATT/CP.5/SR.1-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hd121td2156 | hd121td2156_90270118.xml | GATT_142 | 2,846 | 18,341 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 5/SR. 3
TARIFFS AND TRADE 6 November 1950
R EN L 0i2~~~~~~~~~~~OIGINAL: M,1GISH
CONTRUCTIDG :ARTIES
Filth Session
stwARY- ECOiD OF THE THIrD 1NETIIG
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, England on
Friday, 3 November 1950 at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Hcn. L. D. lJLGRESS (Canada)
Subjects Discussed: 1, Modificction of Schedules consequent upon
adherence to the Brussels Convention for
Tariff Nomenclature (GATT/C?. 5/7)
2. Rectification of Schedule =Xq (Haiti)
(GATT/OP. 5/6)
5. Budget and Administrative Arrangements for
1951 (GATT/C?. 5/10 and 13: GATT/CP/84)
1. 2Idification of Schedules consequent upon adherence to the Brussels
Convention for Tariff Nomenclature (GhTT/CP. 5/7)
Tho CHAIfJRl referred to a letter from the Eurcpean Customs Union Study
Group drawing attention to possible minor adjustments of tariff schedules to
tho Agreemont consequent upon the eventual adherence of ccntracting parties to
the Brussels Convention on TaPiif Nomenclature. It was suggested in GATT/Ci.5/7
by the Executive Secretary that any adjustment of the schedules might be dealt
with by reporting them to all the contracting parties and allowing a suitable
delay for scrutiny; in the absence of objections, the adjustments would be
deemed to be a.proved unanimously and this approval would be formalised in due
course by means of a iectocol %f rectifications. The extension of tho use of a
common tariff nomenclaoure vas a worthy pro'ect and he was sure the ccntracting
parties would give their benevolent attention to the matter.
Mr.sBYSTRICKY (Czechoslovakia) asked whether it wao assumed all
contoacting parties HAIRMANacheru t. the Brussels Ccnvention. The C1{fi'JN
explaineo that the matter before them concern&I only thCse countries which
adhered to the Convention; they woul6 find it necessary to modify their
gcheeules t. the Agreeient if they were to brint thoir official tariffs into
line ,ith the common nomenclature.
Sir Stephen HeL-ZS (United Kii-dci) explainnd that the Bruss.ls
Conventicn would be open fvr signature about the middle of December and that
it was not exclusivo tc countries members of the Study Group but cculd be
accepted by any novernnent.
Mr. BROWg (United States) suppcrted the proposal and suEgested that the
Secretariat allo- ample time for etminaticn of thu adjustments. He also
suggested that the Study Group be asked tu kcep the Secretariat informed of the
pregress made in the adoption of the noienclatux'.
gir mtephen HOIJfS said he wcul1 like to see arreenent in principle amongst
thedules scoind be tdjo.tV the prrp>e.l th.A .chol lz:; h.:'c i'OjQusted, where no-
eco:ory,Adnn amcceptance of the Bru3zc:s Conventis . ,&justents would only be inci- GATT/CP. 5/SR. 3
Page 2.
dental and it was hoped that the other contracting parties would be benevelent in
scrutinising the adaptations which would be required. The Convention would
not come into force until some seven countries had accepted it. He hoped the
contracting parties would take this oppertunity to agree that these arrangements
were desirable.
Mr. AHMAD (Pakistan) wished to reserve the position of his country
because,while considering the unification of oustoms nomenclature a very
desirable object, they were faced with certain practical difficulties and
he could not commit his government to acceptance of a change in its tariff.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom), speaking as the representative
of one of the countries which had participated in the work of the Study
Group, thought that the representative of Pakistan had misunderstood the Matter.
There was no intention of imposing a nomenclature upon any country. It was
of course entirely for each country to decide whether to sign the Convention
or not, but it was at least possible that some contracting parties would
adhere to the Convention and it was suggested that they agree in principal
that this which did adhere should adjust their nomenclature in the
agreement Schedules. He would however, express the hope that ultimately
a common nomenclature for the whole world could be arrived at.
Mr.OLDINI (Chile) said he was not very clear about the issue and
was very apprehensive of approving a decision of which he did not see all
the implications.It was clear that there would be changes in the schedules
and though he supposed these changes would not be great, and that compensations
for any damage would be granted, the fact remained that the lists could not be
modified except by unanimous agreement of all the contractig parties. On
principle, therefore, he couId not fallow the United Kingdom proposal and thought
it would be more useful to return to the Secretariat proposal, the limits of
which had been explained by the Chairman.
M. LECUYER (France) recognised that the adaptation of a new.nomen-
olature to certain tariffs, particularly non-European tariffs, would be a
difficult matter, but he did not think there was any difference of substance
in the proposal of the Secretariat and the proposal of the United Kingdom.
He thought that the fears of the Delegate for Chile werw exaggerated, no
schedule could be modified without the unanimous consent of other contracting
parties,and no contracting party could therefore be bliged to agree to
any modifications.
Mr.AHMAD (Pakistan) said he had thought that the proposal called
for a preval of the adoption of a new nomenclature, and therefore withdrew
his reservation.
The CHAIRMAN repeated that the question before them was to find
means for those who wished to adhere to the Prussels Convention to bring
about thes necessary changes in their schedules by the ordinary procedure
of the Contracting Parties. It was clear that if there were no agreement
the country would have to negotiate. He believed they could say they were in
sympathy with the objectives of the Study Group and that whenever necessary
the ordinary rectifications procedure of the contracting parties would be
available.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) repeated that the Secretariat proposal would be
acceptable. He insisted that the possibility of negotiations being necessary
could not be excluded. He wished to take this opportunity to ask that the
Secretariat bear in mind the position of the more remote countries which often
suffered from late arrival of documents and suggested that ample time be given
to reply. GATT/CP.5/SR.3
page 3.
The contracting Parties agreed to the sending of a reply to the
Secretary-General of the European Customs Union study Group expressing their
sympathy towards the objectives of the Study Group and informing him that
any country; which had any changes to submit to the; contracting parties could
resort to the normal rectification procedure. If there- werc objections, the
GATT would of course always prevail and negotiations would have to be hold
for the Adjustments. The Study Group would also be asked that the Contract-
ing, Parties be kept regularly informed of all ratifications of the Convention.
A discussion followed in which Mr. Pando (Cuba) Mr. Melander (Norway
Mr. Tonkin (Australia) and Sir Stephen Holmes (United Kingdom) took part, on
the period to be allowed to the. Contracting, Parties to Submit comments or
objections to any proposed modifications.
it was agreed to leave the length of the period to the judgement of
the Executive secretary, who would be guided by the length of the lists sub-
mitted, while giving special attention to geographicall remote countries.
Rectification of Schedule XXVl ( Haiti)- ( GATT/CP.5/6)
Mr. DOMiNIQUE (Haiti) pointing out that the document before them.
listed certain errors which had been made in drawing up the final list of'
the concessions of Haiti at Anneey, said that, having received no objections
from France or from other contracting parties., he thought the Contracting
Parties would agree to the rectifications.
Mr. BROWN (United States of America regretted that his Delegation
could not agree, immediately to the rectificationis. One item of considerable
interest to them . made it necessary that they, discuss the matter with the repre-
sentative of Haiti.
M. UhL1ER (France) supported the proposal and explained that the
error could have been rectified at Anney itself, had it not been for the, fact
that tile Haitian Delegation had left Anney too soon. when the French Govern-
ment had been notified of the mistake it had immediately given its agreement.
Mr. DOMINIQUE (Haiti) expressed is readiness to discuss the matter
with the U. S. Delegation.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the rectifications be referred to the
Working Party which he was proposing to set up
Mr. BROWN (U.S.A. ), apologising for not having, presented his objections
earlier, agreed to the latter being. referred to the Working Party but suggested
some preliminary discussion with the Haitian Delegation. Mr. DOMINIQUE agreed.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada), supporting the Chairman's proposal, suggested
that the established procedure distinguishing between rectifications and modi
fications be borne in mind by the Working.Party when Considering this matter
and when considering, the type of document to be drawn up.
It was agreed that the latter be discussed bilaterally with the United
States and any other country which might have Objections., and then referred to
the Working Party on tariff Schedules for examination. The Working Party;
would then report to the Contracting, Parties after having given consideration
to the proposal of Canada.
It was agree to set up Working Party "B" on Tariff Schedules, to
consider items 3, 5 and 21 of the Agenda and report to the Contracting Parties,
composed as follows:
Chairmrn: M. Dufourg (France)
Cuba Sweden
France United Kingdom,
Haiti United States GATT/CP. 5/SR. 3
page 4
Delegations which had rectifications to make to their schedules should send
them to the Secretariat which would pass them to the working Party for con-
sideration.
3. Budget and Administrative Arrangements for .1951 (GATT/CP.5/10,
:GATT/CP. 5/13, GATT/CP/84).
M.ROYER (Deputy Executive secretary) said that financial and admini-
strative; reasons called for an early examination of the budget. The financial
reasons were that ICITO would have to revise the present arrangement with the
Contracting Parties for the repayment of services rendered to their and that
the continuation of the Torquay Conference in the first quarter of 1951 would
involve heavy expenditure during, the early part of the year, at a time when
current contributions were not yet available.
On 1st October, the unobligated cash balance of theGATT account was
about $140,000 whreas expenditure till the end of the year was budgeted for
$135, 000:
Tariff Negotiations $75,000
Fifth Session of the
Contracting Parties 20,000
Salaries and other
current expenditure 40,000
leaving a cash balance( of about $5, OOO, on 31 December. The Contracting
Parties could rest assured that as usual every effort would be made to keep
within these estimates and, if possilble, to spend somewhat less. It is, how
ever, clear that the present cash balances would be exhausted well before, April
next. So long as the 1951 contributions had not come in,: the only source of
income available would be the receipt of outstanding contributions and payments
as listed in document GATT/CP/84, to which should by added the contributions
which the Torquay acceding ,govenments were expected to make to the expenses of
the Conference, amounting to appropriately $20,000.
Even on the assumption that the Fifth Session would end by Christimas
and that the Tariff Negotiations would only require the maintenance of a skelet
staff, the expenditure in the first three months of 1951 would reach a figure of
at least $70,000. If' all outstanding payments were to come in by the end of
1950 or very early in 1951, there would be just enough money to bridge the gap
But a glance at the list contained in GATT/CP/84 would show that some contri-
butions - i e. those of China for 1949 and 1950 - could be written off as
regards the other outstanding amounts, there was no definite indication, except
in one or two cases, as to when they would be likely to be forthcoming. In view
of these circumstances, the Executive Secretary- required an assurance that stops
would be taken to provide adequate resources early next year. To achieve that
result, the governments would have to know very soon what amouts they were called
upon to contribute and this implied that the estimates of expenditure could be
approved b, the Contracting Parties without undue delay.
The other reason calling for an carl, decision on the budget was of an
administrative character. The note of the Executive Secretary made it clear
that, if the Contracting Parties wished to retain the services of the Secretariat
after December next, they would have to agree to the proposal that all the ex-
penditure incurred on behalf of' the Contracting Parties would be met out of
contributions. If this proposal were not acceptable to the goverments concerned,
the Secretariat would probably have to be dissolved, and appropriate action would
have to be taken before the end of the month.
Other administrative arrangements mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
Executive Secretary's note .would also require the attention of the Contracting
Parties as they Would have to be implemented before January. GATT/CP.5/SR.3
page 5
When the Contracting, parties had agreed on the magnitude of 1951
expenditure, they would have to adopt as.scale of contributions for next year.
It; would be remembered that the present scale was a provisional one and. that
it had been decided at Annecy to reconsider the question before the and end of the
year and to examine, In that connection, a proposal submitted by the: Czecho-
slovak Delegation. order to facilitate the discussion of that subject,
the Secretariat had circulated tables showing what contribution each contracting
part, would have to.make to the 1951 expenditure, if the present scale. were
retained or if the Czechoslovak proposal were accepted.
As regarded the budget proper, the following general remarks might be
put forward.
The estimates of expenditure were based on the assumption that the
work-Ioad of the Secretariat would not be considerably heavier in 1951 time in
1950. Experience Last year: had. shown that, even during inter-sessional periods,
the strain on the present establishment was growing and was cased only by engaging
temporary staff and postponing some useful projects. The re-arrangement of the
tariff table- had taken , account of that experience, but the estimates were much
below those of the- ICITO budget in 1950, If, as a result of the consideration
of another item of the -agenda, a different structure were proposed for the Con-.
tracting, Parties and new projects were started, additional resources would
probably be required..
In order. to cke .u-such and other unforeseen expenses for which no pro-
-vision was made in the estimates and to make up for the Uneven flow of contri-
butions, it would appear that some kind of a cash reserve should be set aside.
The 'United Nations and i the International organizations had solved this problem:
by Setting up a Working, Capital. Fund. Since. ICITO followed substantially the.
Same administrative, :and financial rules as that; United Nations, it appeared natural
to follow their example . Accordingly , the, Executive Secretary suggested in his
note that, the Contraction Parties might decide to use the 1950 surplus to build up
that Fund and, if necessary to grant additional advances to bring the Fund up to
the desired level. If it was felt inadvisable to take such a decision this year,
other .alternations night. be, considered. which would serve the same purpose.
Finally .M. ROYER indicaed that the presentation of the estimate had
been modified; the main items of expenditure held been grouped in a short table
and detailed. figures related to annexed schedules, together with I explanlatory
notes; two draft resultions had,- been submitted in order to define the financial
authority given to the Executive Secretary and to facilitate the periodical
auditing, of the accounts.
Mr. BROWN (U.S.A. ),welcome this oppertunity to pay tribute to the work-
of' this Secretariat. As. regards the budget, there was much the wanted to discuss,
and they would like.- to.clbornate particularly with regard to then necessity for
prompt payment of contributions.
Mr. D&Si.CKY (Czechoslovakia) wished. to associate himself with the
representative of the United States in expressing his appreciation for the work Of
the Secretariat. Referring to document Budget/5, which contained a proposal for
the scale of contributions of the contracting parties for 1950, he said they now
had a proposal which.they thought rested on a more exact and fairer basis than
their earlier one and taken any other which had been considered.
The Czechoslovak proposal is submitted and the Chairman gave an assur-
ance::that it would be distrubuted on the following morning.
Mr. Dl NOLA (Italy) wth reference to the delayed; payment of the Italian
contribution for 1950, pointed out that his Government had been. a contracting party
only since the 1st of -. -. a:d was therefore only five months behind. Of these GATT/CP.5/SR. 3
page 6
five months, two had been taken up by the summer recess, and Parliiament had
therefore had little time to approve that item:of expenditure. He wished
to say that the bill had been approved by the Council of ministers and would
be submitted shortly to Parliament. After approval, the item would auto-
matically form part of the budget of every year and no more difficulties were
to be foreseen. He wished to associate himself with the tribute paid by
previous speakers to the Secretariat.
The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | gg490zk5976 | Summary Record of the Third Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Friday, February 24, 1950 at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, February 24, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 24/02/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.3 and GATT/CP.4/SR.1-7 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gg490zk5976 | gg490zk5976_90270077.xml | GATT_142 | 2,253 | 14,695 | RESTRICTED
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.4/SR.3
24 February 1950
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRD MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Friday, February 24, 1950 at 2.30: p.m.
Chairman : Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects :discussed:
1. Declaration of the Government of the Netherlands
under Article XXVI para.4 (GATT/CP.4/11).
2. Status of the Agreement and Protocols.
3. Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate (GATT/CP.3/61).
4. Review of Brazilian Internal Taxes (GATT/CP.3/42, para-
graph 19).
5. Consideration of the Proposal to give effect to the
Provisions of Chapter VI of the Havana Charter (GATT/
CP.3/72 & GATT/CP.3/SR.41 pages:2-4).
1. Declaration of the Government of the Netherlands under
Article XXVI para. 4 (GATT/CP.4/11).
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) recalled that the provi-
sional application of :the Agreement with respect to Indonesia was
notified to the Secretary General of United Nations on 9 February,
1948. On 27: December, 1949, Her Majesty the Queen of the Nether-
lands had transferred to the Government of the Republic of the
United States of Indonesia, the full sovereignty over the:terri-
tory of Indonesia, with the exception of New Guinea. The independent
and sovereign state, with full autonomy, the United States of
Indonesia, was eligible, and prepared to become a contracting party
:to the Agreement in its own right. The Government of the Netherlands
consequently and in accordance with the provisions of Aiticle XXVI.
paragraph 4, made a declaration to the effect that the United States
of Indonesia, having acquired full autonomy, should be deemed a
contracting party.
He welcomed the Republic of the United States of Indonesia
as a contracting party, convinced as he was that the Indonesian
Government were fully aware of the responsibility falling upon
them. The responsibility was heightened by the importance of
Indonesia in the trade of the world. On behalf of his government
he appealed to the contracting parties for a favourable reception
of the new Member. GATT/CP.4/SR.3:
Page 2.
No objection being raised by contracting parties, the
CHAIRMAN declared the United States of Indonesia accepted as a,
contracting party in their own right by virtue of Article XXVI
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
In the name of all contracting parties he welcomed the
accession of the United States of Indonesia. They were all
gratified to have a new member from Asia among them, and he
wished to extend a most hearty welcome to the representative
of Indonesia whom he asked to take his seat among the represen-
tatives of the contracting parties.
Dr. DJUMHANA (Indonesia) said it was a great honour to him
to declare that the Republic of the United States of IndonesiM
was prepared to become a contracting party to the General
Agreement. In so doing at the first opportunity after the
transfer of sovereignty by the Dutch Government, it was demon-
strating its awareness of the necessity, proclaimed by the
Agreement, of intensive collaboration between the free nations
of the world. As a consequence of that decision, and in accor-
dance with Article 5 of the Agreement of Transition between the
Dutch and Indonesian Governments, Indonesia accepted the commit-
ments negotiated by the Government of the Netherlands on their
behalf.
He was instructed by his Government to inform the Contracting
Parties that they wished to avail themselves of the clauses,
touching upon matters of foreign exchange and balance of payments,
contained in Articles XII to XV. Reliance was also placed by his
Government on Article XVIII of the Agreement for the reconstruction
and development of their war-devastated country. He appealed to
the Contracting Parties to give favourable consideration to his
country's needs. It was not possible at this stage to inform
the Contracting Parties of the measures they proposed to take.
This would be done as soon as possible:, but he wished to assure
the Contracting Parties that his Government, in keeping with
the letter and the spirit of the Agreement, would avoid resorting
to undue restrictions on international trade.
He thanked the Chairman for his words of welcome and
assured his country's full collaboration with the Contracting
Parties. : GATT/CP.4/SR .3
Page 3
Mr. DESAI (India), Mr. WALKER (Australia) and Mr SUETENS
(Belgium) spoke words of welcome to the new contracting party.
Dr. DJUMHANA (Indonesia) expressed his thanks on behalf
of his Government.
2. Status of the Agreement and Protocols.
(i) Note by the Executive Secretary (GATT/CP.4/6 & Add.1).
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the unsatisfacotry situ-
ation of the Protocols which had been approved by the Contracting
Parties at previous meetings and to the particular difficulty of
operating the agreement when Protocols requiring the signature
of all contracting parties had not come into force.
U. MYA SEIN (Burma) said that his delegation was
expecting to receive information in respect of the signature
of the protocols by Burma.
Dr. BOTHA (South Africa) said that his Government had now
decided to accept the Special Protocol relating to ArticleXXIV.
Mr. WARD (Southern Rhodesia) said that his Government
was considering the matter of the signature of the Special
Protocol relating to Article XXIV, and he hoped soon to be
informed of their decision.
Mr:. JAYASURYA (Ceylon) said that since the document
before them had been received by his Governments steps were
being taken to sign or accept the outstanding protocols.
Mr. ALFONSO (Chile) said that the protocols not yet signed
by Chile would require the modification of certain laws before
the signature of Chile could be affixed to them. The matter
was under consideration and he hoped would soon be settled.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) said that the new Government in
Australia was considering acceptance of the Special Protocol
relating to Article XXIV, and Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) said
that recent elections in his country had also delayed the
taking of a decision in respect of that Protocol. GATT/CP.4/SR.3
Page 4
Mr. RIBEIRO (Brazil) was happy to report that the
procedure for the approval by the Brazilian legislature of
the protocols still unsigned was well wider way. The protocols
had been passed by the Chamber and were now in the Senate.
The signature would follow the vote in the Senate which he
expected would take place in the next few days.
Mr. DESAI (India) regretted he had no information and
said he would report on the matter in a few days.
Mr. VAN BLANKENSTEIN .(Netherlands) replied to a question
from the Chairmanithat he understood the Protocol Modifying
Article XXVI had been accepted by his Government.
Mr. DUHR (Luxemburg) informed the Chairman that the
Protocol Modifying Article XXVI had not, yet been accepted
merely for reasons of procedure; the Minister of Foreign
Affairs would take the necessary steps.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that they revert to this item
at a later stage when representatives would have received
further information from their governments.
The CHAIRMAN then called the attention of the meeting
to Document GATT/CP.4/6 Add.1, relating to the Annecy Protocol
of Terms of Accession, which required the signature of Acceding
Governments and notifications re the application of conces-
sions by the contracting parties not later than 30 April, 1950. GATT/CP.4/SR.3
Page 5.
(ii) Proposal by. South Africa (GATT/CP/4/5.)
Dr. BOTlM (South Africa) speaking of the proposal contained
at
in document GATT/CP.4/5, said that/present certain articles of
the Agreement embodied different rights and obligations for
different contracting parties. The possibility that this state
of affairs might be aggravated by the addition of new protocols
at the present session made it imperative that steps be taken
to achieve a uniform text with uniform application. The present
time was most propitious, since a further group of countries
would be negotiating for accession to the Agreement, and it would
appear logical that all contracting parties should accept the.
amendments which the acceding countries would be required to.
accept. Compliance with this principle by present contracting
parties would facilitate the accession of other governments.
To prove their earnestness in making the proposal, the
South African government were prepared to make their own contri-
butior by signing the Protocol on Article XXIV and by withdrawing
their reservation, in respect of Article XXXV, to the South Africa
signature to the Protocol Modifying Certain Provisions; with
drawal of this reservation was not, however, to be taken as an
abandonment of the principles on which their objections to
Article XXXV were based. This step was taken with the conscious.
ness that they were contributing to a closer co-operation between
the contracting parties by simplifying their inter-relationship.
Further, he asked the contracting parties to note that South
Africa's decision to adhere to the Protocol on Article XX and
to withdraw their reservation in respect of Article XXXV was not
made conditional upon the success of their proposal in obtaining
the acceptance of all amendments by all contracting parties,
The CHAIRMAN welcomed the constructive proposal made by
r e Botia, and was particularly ,ratified that South Africa, while
maintaining its objection to the principles underlying Article
XXXV, was prepared, for the sake of uniformity, to withdraw the
reservation made with respect to that Article,
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) expressed his satisfaction for
the South African decision and gave full support to their
proposal's
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) Illustrated the advantages of having,
a uniform text of the Agreement and deprecated the delays in GATT/CP.4/SR.3.
Page 6.
Signing the Protocols union, he said, were not always due to
serious reasons. He was in full agreement with the South
African proposal, but suggested that action might be deferred
until such time as representatives had been able to state the
position of their Governments.
Mr. GRADY (United States) supported the South African
proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN, finding general agreement to act on the pro-
posal, suggested, with the concurrence of Dr. BOTHA, that the
step take the form of a resolution of the Contracting Parties.
A dratt resolution would be prepared by the Secretariat and
would be taken up at a later stage when replies had been received
from Governments.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) said that he was prepared, in
principle, to consider a resolution .
3. Australian Subsidy on Ammoniun Sulphate(GATT/CP.3/61)
Mr. WALKER (Australia) said he was. instructed to request
that this question be taken later in the Session. Discussions
between the representatives of the Chilean and Australian
Governments were in progress , and if their outcome were success-
ful the question would be settled without the intervention of the
Contracting Parties. He suggested, tentatively, 8 March as a
possible date on which precise information might be laid before:
the contracting parties.
Mr. RIBEIRO (Chile) supported Mr. Walker's proposal.
It was agreed to postpone consideration of this item.
4. Review of Brazilian Internal Taxes (GATT/CP.3/42, para-
graph 19. :
The request by Mr.zRlBEIRO (Bra'i ) emr a postponaient of
the discussioc,ipending reoelpt of roformation ftbm his Govern-
epted. coeetea.
5. Cn aidara tion-f t he:roposal'o give,effect .o the Pro-
Chapter VI of theHavana C
The CHAIRMAN r-callo tb., zinal coaeidwred iha of tfe pro-
.osals of tie Unitad Kpnodom Gov:htunnteh4d 0gen defeerenmero.
txe Third to the FnurthhSwssion. GATT/CP.4/SR.3.
Page 7.
Mr. CASDAGLI :(United Kingdom) proposed that Chapter VI of
the Havana Charter be brought into force independently of any.
action which might be taken with respect to the Chapter as a
whole. Chapter VI was capable of independent application
and its enforcement would eliminate the confusion which arose
out of the present uncertainty.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that the reasons which had
induced the United States Delegation to oppose the proposal at
the Third Session were still valid. It was felt that the
advanced application of Chapter VI would prejudice the chance
of ratification of the Havana Charter. Moreover, whatever
assumptions were made as to the date when the Havana Charter
was likely to come into force, he did not see the necessity
for action in this field. A number of Study Groups, Councils,
and commodity agreements were at present in existence; the Tin
Study Group had taken steps for the establishment of a Tin
Agreement which it was proposed to keep within the terms of the
Charater.- He had heard of no proposal for a commodity agreement
in which the majority of countries was not in favour of adhering
to the principles of Chapter VI, and he found it difficult
therefore to see what could be gained if the proposal were put
into effect, and he hoped the United Kingdom Delegation would
not press its recommendation.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) expressed his agreement with the
statement made by the representative of the United States of
America. Whilst agreeing with the representative of the United
Kingdom, that certain advantages would accrue from the applica-
tion of Chapter VI, the procedure for putting it into force
would confront his Government with constitutional difficulties
which could not easily be overcome.
Mr. CASDAGLI (United Kingdom) thought there had been one
development since the Third Session which made the application
of Chapter VI more desirable. The Conference of the Food and
Agriculture Organisation had expressed concern over the
situation arising out of the absence of binding principles to
govern such agreements. The failure to apply Chapter VI was
therefore felt as a considerable hindrance. Although he agreed
with Mr. EVANS that certain councils were at present at work on
commodity agreements, he felt that the need of a set of binding GATT/CP.4/SR .3:
Page 8 :
rules was all the greater.
MAN CHAIRDLN called for speakeou in fav.ur of the
proposal, and, no support being fortMcoming, 1r. CASDAGLI
(United Kingdom) declored he w'uld not press the question.
The meeting adjourn.ed at 5 pm.
~~~~~~~ - |
GATT Library | cj703yr0111 | Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting : Corrigenda | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 17, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 17/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.13/Corr.1 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cj703yr0111 | cj703yr0111_90270137.xml | GATT_142 | 273 | 1,896 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ACCORD GENERAL SUR RESTRICTED GATT/CP.5/SR.13/Corr.1
ON TARIFFS AND LES TARIFS DOUANIERS BILINGUAL LIMITED B
TRADE ET LE COMMERCE 17 November 1950 ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING P,-, T 1w,
Qrrisctid
~ ~~~~~~Z .T"',
agLa statuamadeiby Dhis par.-rph was :;A d ceDr. :a ' (lnonhsia)
.nd ns b;, .r. atadinin-rat.
NaGISH roaly)2, linm 5 (. GL1x:: cn2 j
Ta0- d&t cosh"1948"0ad i1953" and nct 'Jl4L1
aj ' .3 para. 7
LU triemeariaraMh SAADIenserta..o.-l MeMef Xyj , (lmtu.xnLtnnactarJ
Fuldw Uot rc d as foliois:
eAsundr was evi Zalands tio wFwid ;. facedIwith a ne situation. it had
bteilanfowl.ld thac New Z&a!.ad eoumei proposee no a...und:ints to thil exchange
e rce .expe itdhah tiNew ferland-w=clecenZat i; Ziaiwcl touid unter into
ai1the C:±meX~i8 ent by e h,Hti.z ofmed thsesshone e presu.;ci tat tner
arty,and he ooald m kept jo 'mmen par wcue.mae his co.nis at thu(eotmng of
ts, wor!rigC Tarts.
Cinpuiè..e Session-.L .2f 2 1
U DE LA TREIZIE EqtESSION##6 SC orr O11
~ 1 p-araraphe 4
La -14clax:ionereprsdceto danraCo parégé'phe a 6t6 faite par M.
ENRILDJOE1éNA (Indon6sie) et non par M. Natadiningrat.
aPagc p+e 4rxgratho
Lèmtroisagraie pde rla edé1; 1L. clae a..onAD M4 SAUD (Fénds monitaire
internationaê) doiéd8tée rdme 6scom::. -uit
àuLn-t : la e- élande l .ctnd, le eonds sc trouvé en er6'eneo d uno
situt.ien eouvIlla.a I1étév.itot6éiqferme -ut lelleoZéc113-16eapde no iropo-
spasli' men mea.!màclnac 1' acord de. Ilnge'a. s attend,itnpér coise-
quenque co NUC ellTouéJa]eeZel.nâ0 signet un aecord do change avané la pr6-
sonto seMsiona N. éa2meprqs't. culue eroup ao treva l scrat cénetitue ot
en erasoesomr sco obsns atioiiz'lnrs éluwe reenien do ce groupQ de tra-
vail." |
GATT Library | dk960sr7883 | Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Friday, 10 November, 1950, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.13 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dk960sr7883 | dk960sr7883_90270136.xml | GATT_142 | 2,475 | 15,162 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE 13 November 1950
ORIGINAL; ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
.Held at the
I ' .70.1,-_ , ur_ !C,5n
3., C,':_-.ilLi. MJi\
z;;.wn1. ;,lt y
orL. Lv _(. .:u.)
Su. ; ¢ pe Cs..rr4b ;;k it of' (y6)i
.:'J.L.tarn Li.i -c~co. -. .c *.o.bc'a': of t.L_ -uni ,S ~l ;.:urc, :.t-r-<
.ive contracting partiu not yt. A.o tiiu Fu n_, lo' ;:ch t.. ;
;; I-. cx~ch-n.-)g ac~rc:.,Lent.s o...c> t{* p.id;.t:tV, :{ceen,-.- r.
Cf the UitIi- I; tiO r signr.aur . '.' ntrjes .-C. ;',r ._, . .iti,
In 1b:Scj, stL&.XC. ZC:1-IC :.nri '.
aaa ta.o~ *Rtop' to ,5.- thuC nt-rru t-izmJ.. ~.orictFund .'mhl~ ther:''.'r' hopod
t a oro o. 2ci.i bi. ir.c a SpeciaJ. oi n,:u . ir*c.:1 ;t i
... CA1Vth (Ioini) .ia th, chti o ,joining ti . .i. \..5. 1S;
an hii. do1oEata hac C ti.LN it i v it t oir f' t U C' W -;,. in
greement. Noi ', {~tz rh.i.ti o f ht . j' c c:.LuZAit', : t 17it:. t . oi,> azrc ;:h ..
rol~l h .; 'iE ,ct Icmn received.
to Ccc, pt .. :Q ci:; c1ch.1,1 xeci-: i- di Cntlro .t in ?r'ti: dii;
l:c';,It jiz tliac,<i i.:-iCr CCIuL ; :-,i ^A.!er|;3';.!t
s~c1Ltencsof' thC, d! _lL s I?.'2?-~
'cle XI was ; iufundmental impertance to . t i,; i , i .'. ;: of i'. ,. .. ' i.Lpcrt to
appliedfUI he Fund ford h.at his G-tr-...nt a.r.'. c pt:i to t C 2w, if..r
e Contracting Parties, although.:c :iii set cy u Conr,'acting, Paa'tti~, :itnc'4. :
. reason to believe that bcee~n t-kzen. : KciV..rX'OX tCu.L LV tLYI,
ch they would enter into ahspecialc:,, h.J ¢ !ioJ., f i :'v~'L '.' 2 : 1 -' Wi'LL.
es. If the Contracting Parties.:iti : u ;t,-.In .cl i.;, .i;v''tai o. if' ti
the first day of the next sessier.L 3u. Q :ci. 'he {'ix';G day of < ho ?;uC u. L
nment had found certain . ) eaja.t1 'r7.t h2'is _Jo'vr'r'l:.icri;.t'..
ith the resolution of the uflcst;UW"'r to cant' ox:.z. "itl.i thwt resol
participation in the Fund or the 'ii.riry< p rl.t~v.icipatio' inX thiu .i''tz;1.
These difficulties, they believed &;; *S~ici, C~lG' 'w~t.'f;'/ic- : 'qj.c. ti.
ch the previsions ~ra'2;e V applied.o \/hLi. hu '-!-C; ~ n~ f Ajticlc X\:A clc
his Government was not favourable theat ii ucvcxm:;nt ;m-;i:.; n.:'t fc.v ol:
di.i-oodc in this respect a speek may bed and qutted Jfl t.i i rosL p.ot a : ..:ub
was stated that they did not have tc#'.Wl tl'tJ Wthuy) idi~ n1'.t a''vt 4,;i..
e ntioconvinced of the advantages as'1by WVOr not cinviincC71 L0f t oiVt;a oS :
::.-.-I'-r -haims of the Fundy any opposition to the aix.15 o tOf P4i in
1r,wast Of orceeny exchanghepoNew Zealande it vca the irntortion of tiJ .,x '; 21
ox'n..:oform as.-_ys to dn tihuir bu-'.particularr..: to such prizciples. In t'i:ct-1C2
eiNr; Ne Zredara eovern.:ntevaud ngh sexk to sCcul.;tn'.u advantagE throutif oo'
Change t:aSux'c:. page 2
In the Iight of that attitude it was natural that his Government rn..;Int
ie close scrutiny to the special exchange agreement into which ito whichit
sed they should enter. In the course of this examination they hadx:tcix~n
y serious objections to entering into an exchange ag
C CbC~~~~r cbecause of any special circumstance in which New Zealand f
rl c lf-d l-zbecause of the nature of the agreem
1.Lao:.t~~~~':n tac a.~~~. ~~ &. t~: ato the procedural arrangements for thministr
".I . I, - I. Xa. Yc tI:p rthe importance of which to all contracting artie
Lttc~~flt2. 1r I ,I; kj.Applicationthe Agreement and been looked upon amore
coiooidcr,.ti ~ ~~... thought he could say that the problem of making proceral
arj. cvcn ~w ~ja the administration of special exchange agreements w hav
I'L cd 1. Cr~ iattention to procedural arrangements at their Fourth Session had appeared
anclear from the outset of the discussions that they were confronted with -t
United States delegation and another by the New Zealand delegation. Prefound
consideration of the difficulties involved had not succeeded in reducing them,u ifnr
en now they did not have a solution acceptable to all contracting parties an dL C"Il cn
have no practical value unless it were properly administered,.cnt by
s factor had led them~~~~ ehe conclusion that one could not except a. .tc
vernment did not feel it could take a final decision on the resolution oftc:. f
ng parties that their decision was based on the serious difficultiestic opn of his,
wished however to stress the importance attached by his ccdl.~ t a ci pJ it a
the proper conduct of exchange matters., inlu c untanosf- SS.AMic had. noiptru.a-
ih udput tic... in a posti-cton to takod quic actio uc
4.~ L-- '.'n1 t ...a f r1 ~ _
wnrr : rLZDt cu'tcra2OlS~: ~ cir% i c rwit :0 C.q . w
tkic~ t.h.&di'i&tinc in otcr uasd a.Lndivcsto ith porz-scrit Fcscr hinz
'(i.~r. in 1947 -th~ ft-L afte:C tUc ("L c.in t I r - IQLy had tn thut that o --f
:.:uch ..r~rc scli~ly constituewi r tn.):atin suc `.s ~tic nC 1-tenec~'cd iur ion
Trade'rgaiizaicn hichwoul hav tafic :-irnpprr piat : rtc1iicrt 3to$ate-.thb,
~erital &ifficuLt-,d intc~ lioe, cOLVcrto pca xi.gcarc.:ns hc
inoPr i..L ..Jidnt-,ratcti, :rti t .c.'dsi~idt ~lwthtau..tc
in a task;~j tC- r rojuirirg ac~:, onU cjxhai.r,-dc 1.tc iWe hpsn hofc ti GATT/CP.5/SR.13
United States was being examined at the Fourth Session the deIegation of
the -United Kingdom had drawn the attention of their colleagues to the fact
that while the obligations of acontracting part under a special exchange
agreement must necessarily be to the Contracting Parties, and not to the
Fund, nevertheless the matter dealt with was essentiala matter which fell
under the sphere of competence of the Fund. Indeed, exchange agreements as
they were drafted, were virtually replicas of the Fund artcles. This had
led to the obviously unsatisfactory situation that the Contracting, Parties.
in administating special exchange would agreement would become not much mere than
a "rubber stamp" for the decisions of the Fund.
As to a solution cf the peresent difficult, he felt that the only
possible course for the Contracting Parties was to make some ad hoc arrangement
to deal with the case before them and to consider at the appropriate stage
whether the relevant section of the Agreement did not need a complete revision.
Apart from the special case of New Zealand he saw no other actual
instance in which difficulties of any practical importance could arise. As
for New Zealand itself, he felt the Contracting Parties could be assured by
the record of' that Government's performance as well as by the recent statement
by the Prime Minister that there were no reasons to fear any impairment of the
purposes of the Agreement or of the Fund by the inability of that Government
to enter into a special exchange agreement. He was sure that the New Zealand
delegation would be prepared to give assurances for the future and to observe
any safeguards.
For future consideration at a time when they miht consider other
possible amendments, he submitted that the Contracting Parties might wish to
amend the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade so as to dispense with the
alternative of special exchange agreements but with the differerce that any
future accediing government would be required to join the Fund. They would
thus be reverting to the position from which they had started. He appealed
to the Conntracting Parties to give sympathetic consideration to the case
before them.
Mr. SAAD (International Monetary Fund) said that the Governments
of Burma and Sweden had made applications to jointthe Fund and he believed
a favourable decision could be expected in a few weeks'time. Similarly, he
thought a favourable decision would be made in a short time in the case of
the application of the Government of Indonesia.
In the case of Haiti there appeared to be some confusion because
that Government had made an application and had had time to decide up to
September 30, 1950. They had failed to do and the request had lapsed.
They head furthermore sent a letter informing the Fund that they were not
prepared to join and he therefore did not think, it necessary to set a further
limit in which Haiti would be given time to join the Fund. The Government
therefore should be asked to sign a special exchange agreement.
As for New Zealand, they were faced wiith a new situation. They had
been informed that New Zealand would propose no amendments to the exchange
agreement. They had therefore expected that New- Zealand would enter into
an exchange agreement by the time of the next session. He would be at the
disposal of any working party which might be set up, to supply any comment
or information which might be required.
Mr. BRONZ (United States) noted with pleasure that at least three
of the five countries were taking, steps to join the Fund. He wished to
refer to the fact that all the ccuntries in question had let the time limit
elapse without taking, the steps demanded of them by the Contracting Parties.
He thought that punctual observance of dates fixed should become a regular
practice of contracting parties. GATT/CP.5/SR. 13
page 4
With regard to the statement of New Zealand, he said there had never
been a suspicion that New Zealand harboured improper designs in them.atte,1
but indeed,alLtoguh o uzpuicoinswelece,ntertaien of any ounyr-, it daa
nevertheless been felt aB Erean wn dst5 thaadherence cote a fmal docume dnt ;
WessQsoeatizl. Thememor.;siof pre-war wr evenwe eoro still fh aid vn yhe-
hagreedrehe tat tFu d would be a solution towards the ims tprmveuent of
rolatsonphirs in this field.
in 194w, ;hdn ¢ragin. uhetAgreement, most:'' delegatiohad''- felt
tlFu d mem;.:bhersip shoube acpbe-requisite of membe..brship ihe a not;ernational.
igace crjon;zati-n: aough this aihLt d was ue a.e-rcl.xod in favour of coun-
hrih might have difficulties, it had been t um bcoondehstid tnot tga -blic.tions
mben .oseers In ehe Thont:rTatde O,ga ;arionnizctor ingexmhanoe ;woters v,uld
e of d mem of Fun1i Eaeers weth onI exccoi fi that nr contributinmedzere cl:.;c_
sndor.:accesL tF Fun was gurees . m ivono- so _uch g: that para-raph 2 of
jrticue XV instind as a final instance in judgments relating t .;;nts reltin to
monetary exerve ;rd zbalances of payment. u nce: o p .o:nt .
Ac lhe prhad._ntdi'fieseenes .-a beend hiood ein 1946 a-rl hs celo-
['a tiI'oihrof epecr len, iangeLagreemescca].ex.chnise .ree.:ents. Fofr hLiC
to explore any ic. a.,rec to cxmel-regnyheasgieemity of . undin- tIl A[r..eent
as prop-Ie ed Kingdom welejatione of te Unowt!e- - ithot prcjdice- h;,ev;,r,
tnd membership should only be made obligatory on-}-;ll ',nl, bc :.ace obli,..ty cn
futurW accidin;.~,,orrl. ,tc
At tneandrtonceesed n tehe Vr1i n Party h-d c ,-crncr: ^slf with
plementation of exchange agreements. e if le .entuti' 5 ,ree:. t. If
sesoppeueen the teeee and. b -pI J 1r-c'icCaj Cacse betwU-n* tl-h prcs:nt.nA the110
e working Party t1;<LouE ht ii t ul A. Lo nc-ce5ssrun- fr the ;,.rkinuarty to
aps some its task as rec4" .er-e- it .t L;rcraus oeSsi.an. Po rh.^.. dis-
mretic)I eould be left't t t'-iX Ri -r~in,. c.Zx'tth'is point in it te:..s o;f reftr-
cnc .
.;r, PHI.Jc, (vn L. =) e\-ccrco his .tOis actiono viti thc, indicaton of
three countries thXt ngoti:tir..- ± r _u.d ..o::bershi.p wvil avancf. HiS
': !± ;n!t .o1tihC cas~ o <f 1.e,. Z- :; ^;i-. w;-..wL tx* b< ....ael -ly nvievw cf that
sit4-ti n. Th% decisirn t,.li;:L t . Zzl.r.. G::,vern:.e.nt ;oul raise a
nuTber of difficult is!ucs becz :,- ,,; c tor:..s: Y ti.U .r nera¢.l Aarc,.nt v ry
pmrcise.
His delc-Ati n felt t .a z re ors uce:d by thu DQ1e. ate of New
. L and wn erstr n, anl v:.id. - . '.i.iur f the international Trade O,-aniz-
ati.n t, cc,;.e int.>bei% - d. crn.te,` r&, CifficuLdtiL.
-i felt that if, in fict; it turned J .t t.zft ..ll cojtracti parties
but one beca:e; l;bers f, the i'Un tPa u-.irtractirs, ?rtius wulla bcell .wvise
t- re-exa.ine the,position tc se. etaer it wre nrt better to introduce Ls
rul> for th.1e titue-Ctoapulso-Mrs,# lani'"wr,;. :.c- .bersipra~inarl.- ntonddc b, ay- lar,
nu ber .f the fra.ers of thX A i r(o ..
ii felt they sh^uld e-xoLo r t: .:Cot t;-, srCeCia;l posiof Ne
Zoaland. They( should, ikower boa; in :lan! that so:,c for.± )o-tro) sucl.
as, fir instancL, auth-ri'i f.r t'e C.trLctirn. Partic to consult on oxchwxge
;attcrs, was necessary.
*r. GUEi r (Cuba) a.-.<;rcr. ;;i~th t! 4he'4 renrr:; tentatf ' anarl- that the
difficulties .of the iew ZeI-al'af:, ieJtinn sere re;l o)esarisirlpfra. the
fact that thE Contrnctinr, Parties £.. Y.o a.e'wu:.tW :aacinury to) deal ,thI t
pr.bien. This was a real difficult3 f-r -.11 c )awitVjieS w.he-rc-ick-.ctiion
.nd secrecy werc neccss.ry,
A spirit of cb-oper.tiri nad lvra. t c,.n ftund i theConlltracting.,
Parties anc, when necessary, ;rran-e:ents t : e-t special eases hL; been
He appualcL t, the Contracting Partics to.tte:.ip to find a solution to the GATT/CP. 5/SR ,13
case of New Zealand in this spirit. He feared, however, that in view
of certain difficulties he could not see how a solution could easily be
arrived at. In the first place he could not see how they could dispense with
some form of commitment on the part of the Government of New Zealand or of any
other country. Monetary factors were so linked with commercial factors that
complete freedom in the Monetary field could not be accepted. Secondly, a
greater difficulty arose out of the fact that they could not look upon the
case of New Zealand as an isolated one in view of the possibility, envisaged
by the Agreement, of a contracting party withdrawing from the Fund. In that
event there was a definite provision in the Agreement that such, a contracting
party should sign a special exchange agreement. They should therefore ensure
that in meeting the case of New Zealand they would not be weakening, the obli-
gations of paragraph 6 of Article XV. He did not think they should leave it
open to a contracting party which considered its freedom of action limiited by
provisions of the Fund to obtain a free hand by withdrawing: from that Agency.
Mr. CAUVIN (Haiti), with reference to the remark of the representative
of the Fund that no delay need be granted to the Government of Haiti to join
the Fund but that it be asked to sign a special exchange agreement, wished to
point out that his country was at present faced with a change of government
and of constitution and that he felt that if a short delay were granted the
matter might be satisfactorily cleared. He suggested that the delay be ex-
tended to the opening date of the next session.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m.
M |
GATT Library | nf173yj3013 | Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on Monday, 6 March, 1950, at 2.30 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 6, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 06/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR/13 and GATT/CP.4/SR.8-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nf173yj3013 | nf173yj3013_90270097.xml | GATT_142 | 2,142 | 13,645 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.4/SR.13
6 March 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, 6 March, 1950, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Report on Exceptions to the Rule of
Non-discrimination - Article XIV:
1(g).
2. Arrangements for Regular Reporting in
accordance with paragraph 2 of
Annex J.
3. Intensification of Import Restrictions
under Article XII.
1. Report on Exceptions to the Rule of Non-Discrimination -
Article XIV: 1(g) (GATT/CP/39 and SECRET/CP/3 to 8)
The CHAIRMAN referred to the documents before them con-
taining the replies to the questionnaire, the draft report
(SECRET/CP/3) prepared by the Secretariat and the Note by the
Executive Secretary (SECRET/CP/7) on the application of import
restrictions to safeguard balances of payments.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) thought the matter required
discussion by a small body which should concern itself with the
examination of the replies and the clarification of any points
that remained obscure.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed with the representative
of New Zealand and thought that a broad, general and factual
report should be drawn up on the basis of the Secretariat's
draft.
Mr. VERNON (United States) wished to commend the
Secretariat for the quality of the draft report and expressed
the hope that further information would be gathered directly
from the representatives present so as to obtain a sense of the
quality of quantitative restrictions which did not emerge from
the replies to the questionnaire. It was too early to decide
whether the Secretariat draft should be adopted as a basis for
the report, or whether a report could in fact be completed at
this Session, and he asked for a certain latitude in the terms GATT/CP .4 /SR .13
Page 2.
of reference which would be given to the Working. Party.
Mr. LECUYER (France) agreed with previous speakers that an
excellent draft report had been submitted to them by the Secre-
tariat, but the draft contained no conclusions, and he suggested
that the working Party should be given the task of drawing up a
preliminary report with provisional conclusions for examination
by the Contracting Parties which could decide whether to accept
it, modify it, or defer completion to a later session.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) agreed with the procedure suggested by
the representative of New Zealand, but felt that the Working Party
should be left some latitude in carrying out its task.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) agreed with the representative of
Canada and favoured a generalised approach in the drafting of the
report for which a very useful basis was supplied in the draft
before them. He thought the Secretariat deserved praise both
for the draft report and for the Note on the application of
import restrictions to safeguard the balance of payments.
The CHAIRMAN asked that guidance be given to the Working
Party as to the inclusion of the Annecy acceding governments
within the scope of the report. In reply to a question he said
that of the latter, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy and Sweden
had submitted statements in response to the questionnaire.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) considered it reasonable to
include in their examination those acceding governments which
had replied to the questionnaire.
The CHAIRMAN found representatives were generally agreed
that the terms of reference of the Working Party should be broad
and flexible. More specific terms of reference could be re-
quested at a later stage if thought necessary by the Working
Party. It was also understood that any contracting party or
acceding government which had submitted replies to the question-
naire might be asked to supply further information.
After a discussion in which the CHAIRMAN, Mr. VERNON
(United States) and Mr. WALKER (Australia) took part,
concerning the instructions to be given to the Working Party in
the event that lack of time might prevent the completion of a
report, the following terms of reference were approved:
To examine the documentation which has been, or may be,
submitted on the discriminatory application of import
restrictions under the transitional arrangements of
article XIV and Annex J, and to prepare a draft report
to be adopted by the Contracting Parties in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph 1(g) of Article XIV. GATT/CP.4/SR .13
Page 3.
The Contracting Parties then agreed to set up a Working
Party on balance-of-payments questions under the chairmanship
of Mr. J. DEUTSCH (Canada), composed as follows: Australia,
Belgium Chile, France, Netherlands New Zealand, Norway, South
Africa, United Kingdom and the United States.
2. Arrangements for Regular Reporting in accordance with
paragraph 2 of Annex J. (GATT/CP.4/1 5
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the part of item 13 of the Agenda
dealing with reporting in accordance with Article XVI had been
previously dealt with.
The Contracting Parties approved the proposal of
Mr. VERNON (United States) to refer this items to the Working
Party on Balance of Payments Questions, previously set up, with
the following additional terms of reference:
To recommend arrangements for contracting parties taking
action under paragraph 1 of Annex J to keep the Contracting
Parties regularly informed regarding such action.
3,. Intensification of Import Restrictions under Article XII
(GATT/CP.3/68, GATT/CP.4/10 and GATT/CP.4/22.)
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the United Kingdom had informed
the Contracting Parties at Annecy of their intention to intensify
their import restrictions but that they had not been in a position
at the time to provide details. The Contracting Parties had
subsequently agreed to hold the consultation during the Fourth
Session.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) gave a summary of the statement
submitted by the United Kingdom Delegation in document
GATT/CP.4 /22.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) drew attention to the fact that the
United Kingdom statement made no mention of the Belgian franc
area, which, he thought, should also be the subject of discussion.
There had been in recent months, as a consequence of various
governmental measures and of the devaluation of the pound sterling,
a reversal of the trend of payments between the United Kingdom
and Belgium. Imports from the United Kingdom were flowing into
Belgium whereas Belgian exports to the United Kingdom had been
considerably reduced. The situation having so much improved for
the United Kingdom, he considered that it would be appropriate
for the United Kingdom to cease discrimination against the area
of the Belgian franc.
Mr. SHACKLE replied that the United Kingdom's programme of GATT/CP.4/SR.13
Page 4.
imports from Belgium was determined by their bilateral trade
agreement until June of the present year. Their policy at that
time would depend to a considerable extent on the discussions
which were to be held in the O.E.E.C. on European payments.
arrangements.
Mr. CASSIERS, pointing out that the United Kingdom measures
had been as damaging to Belgium as to dollar-area countries, said
the Belgium franc could not be regarded as a scarce currency as
far as the United Kingdom balance of payments was concerned. The
United Kingdom was actually earning Belgian francs and would
consequently not risk any loss of gold to Belgium. This being
the case he felt he could ask for a withdrawal of the measures
which discriminated against Belgium. The provisions of the
Agreement could not be waived by the existence of a bilateral
agreement, nor could a contracting party impose upon another
contracting party bilateral discussions as a forum for the
settlement of differences arising out of discrimination, and deny
it access to the procedure for consultation with the Contracting
Parties. He would be very surprised if the United Kingdom
Delegation were to say they did not agree to the discussion of
this problem.
Mr. SHACKLE repeated that, their trade relations having
been agreed upon till June, he saw no need to revise the trade
programmes. It was not possible to foretell what the situation
would be next June, nor how it would be affected by discussions
in the O.E.E.C. The discussion of their programme was appropriate
with respect to the dollar-area, with which they had no trade
agreement.
Mr. CASSIERS thought it might be possible to leave the
question open at this point and suggested informal talks with
the representative of the United Kingdom. He could not see how
a bilateral agreement could be invoked in a discussion concerned
with the intensification of restrictions. He felt the United
Kingdom could be asked to discuss the question on the strength
of the provisions of articles XII, XIII and XIV, and regretted
that the information promised in Annecy was not forthcoming.
What would be the plans of the United Kingdom upon expiration
of the trade agreement on the 1st of July? If discussions in
the O.E.E.C. resulted ina European payments plan the situation
would be simple, but if it were not so, then he felt this was
the appropriate moment for discussing the attitude of the United
Kingdom. He could see no reason why Belgium should not benefit GATT/CP. 4/SR .13
Page 5.
from at least a part of the United Kingdom Open General Licence
system and repeated that he did not feel he could give up his
right to discuss the matter.
Mr. SHACKLE expressed his readiness to discuss the matter
with the representative of Belgium, but pointed out that in the
United Kingdom's trade with Belgium there remained a danger
for the United Kingdom of losing gold. Their experience of the
past made it necessary for them to be cautious. It was not a
matter in which they could give pledges, and they could only
adjust their trade agreements from time to time to the existing
situation.
Mr. CASSIERS thanked the representative of the United
Kingdom, and agreed it would be best to leave the matter open
pending discussions between them.
Mr. VERNON (United States) .asked.whether the question
before them was that of examining only the intensification
of United Kingdom import restrictions.
The CHAIRMAN replied that reference had been made to the
appropriateness of examining any intensification in the system
of restrictions of other countries. He thought it would be
desirable to refer this determination to the Working Party on
balance of payments questions which would be obtaining relevant
information in connection with the preparation of its report under
Article XIV: 1(g).
Mr. VERNON appreciated the economy of such a procedure, but
feared that the Working Party might find itself in the ambiguous
position of not always knowing whether it was obtaining information
relative to the one or the other of the two subjects. He suggested
that the Working Party might be asked to determine, in the light of
available facts, which countries had intensified their restrictions
and should therefore consult with the Contracting Parties. He
believed that there had been an intensification of import restrict-
ions not only by the United Kingdom; this opinion was based not
on the statistical effect of the steps taken, but rather on the
measure of the changes in a country's system of restrictions.
The CHAIRMAN replied that it was not envisaged that the Working
Party set up to deal with balance-of-payments questions should con-
sider together matters arising out of Articles XIV and XII, but that GATT/CP.4/SR.13
Page 6.
the information obtained in connection with Article XIV: 1 (g)
would materially assist the Working Party in examining restrictions
under Article XII.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) said he had no objection to the pro-
posal of the representative of the United States. With regard to
Australia he recalled that in their reply to the questionnaire they
had indicated that certain discriminatory measures which had been
taken were thought to be permitted under Article XIV: 1 (b) and
(c). He agreed that the Working Party should consider whether
there had been an intensification of restrictions, and he was pre-
pared to give any supplementary information that might be required.
Mr. SCHHITT (New Zealand) thought the Working Party should
be instructed either to report to the Contracting Parties so that
the latter might invite countries which had intensified their re-
strictions to enter into consultations with the Contracting Parties,
and he proposed to include in the terms of reference such words as
those contained in the Chairman's airgram "as to whether or in
which countries substantial intensification has occurred."
Mr. VERNON agreed with the representative of New Zealand and
wished to add that, so far as the United States was concerned an
invitation to consult under Article XII did not imply any violation
of the terms of the Agreement.
The Contracting Parties agreed to refer this item to the
Working Party on Balance-of-Payments Questions with the following
terms of reference:
To determine which contracting parties are substantially
intensifying import restrictions and should therefore be
invited to consult with the Contracting Parties in accord-
ance with Article XII: 4 (b), and to report thereon to the
Contracting Parties.
In a second stage the Contracting Parties would formulate new
terms of reference.
The meeting adjourned at 6.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | zf293bw2388 | Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Thursday, 9 November 1950, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, November 14, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 14/11/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR. 12 and GATT/CP.5/SR.9-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zf293bw2388 | zf293bw2388_90270135.xml | GATT_142 | 1,879 | 12,412 | RESTRICTED GATT/CP.5/SR. 12
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON LIMITED B.
TARIFFS AND TRADE 14 November 1950
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELFTH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay,
on Thursday, 9 November 1950, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subject discussed: Review of Import Restrictions and Second Report on
Discriminatery Application of Restrictions -
Questionnaire (GATT/CP.5/5) (continued discussion)
Review of Import Restrictions and Second Report on Discriminatory Application
of Restrictions - Questionnaire (GATT/CP.5/5)
M. LECUYER (France) said he could not agree to the contention put
forward by the Norwegian representative that the questionnaire imposed on
answering countries the burden of proving that they were not guilty of
infringing the provisions of the Agreement; on the contrary, to supply
such information would be a demonstration of a clear conscience. It would
also provide governments with an opportunity of reviewing their own restrictive
measures and of ascertaining their necessity. This work was merely a
continuation of what was left unfinished at the Fourth Session, and the draft
questionnaire had been prepared by the Secretariat in pursuance of instructions
given by the Contracting Parties. The draft was, perhaps, a little too
scholastic and over-restrictive. For instance, it required that texts of
laws and decrees be furnished, whereas the Secretariat had already been
amply supplied with such documents, and would probably find difficulty in
coping with even greater masses of documentation. A list of such laws,
giving titles, numbers and dates would probably suffice for that purpose.
Similarly, the information required by Section VII, if fully supplied, would
be too bulky to be dealt with by the Secretariat. Moreover, it was obviously
impossible for governments to anticipate the trend of future trade, especially
at this juncture. In conclusion, M. Lecuyer expressed satisfaction with the
work performed by the Secretariat in preparing the draft.
Mr. BRONZ (United States) joined the other representatives in
commending the Secretariat for the work done in carrying out the instructions
of the Fourth Session. The United States Government might have different
views from those hold by some other governments, as it did not maintain any
restrictions on balance-of-payment grounds. The difficulties which would
confront governments in answering the questionnaire would by no means be
commensurate with those confronting business men who had to deal with a maze
of ever changing and varying regulations. Restrictions maintained on the
ground of balance-of-payment difficulties had been prevalent, and the
Contracting Parties had an obligation to ascertain whether, in each case,
there was a real need for them; whether a country had not gone beyond what
was permissible under the Agreement, and whether any restriction had
incidental protective effects inconsistent with their original purpose. For
these purposes, the Agreement called for a review to be made under Article
XII: 4(b), and reports under Article XIV: 1(g). The questionnaire was the GATT/CP. 5/SR. 12
Page 2
and report.
first step towards such a review/The draft prepared by the Secretariat
providied an excellent basis for working out a questionnaire calculated to
carry cut these obligations.
As for the criticism that prophecy would be involved in the
answering of certain questions, Mr. Bronz said it was Obvious that every
decision taken in the economic field inevitably involved a certain amount
of prediction. The maintenance of quantitative restrictions for balance-
of-payment reasons itself involved prediction of the trend of trade and the
effect of restrictions. There was no need to ferecase any events in the
distant future and the purpose of such a forecast was not to show the
proficioncy of governments in the art of forecasting. Such exercises would,
however, at least be of value to the governments maintaining such
restrictions as they would help them to make future decisions. As regards
the possible confidential character of trade agreements attention should
be drawn to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article X of the Agreement.
In reply to the suggestion by the New Zealand representative that questions
be added relating to quantitative restrictions applied under other
provisions of the Agreement, the United States delegation would agree to
the collction of such information and his Government would no doubt be
prepared to suppIy it when required. However, as the working party to be
appointed would be composed chiefly of financial experts not expected to
be conversant with non-financial measure, it would probably not be
sufficiently competent to advise on questions relating to restrictions
other than these for balance-of-payment purposes.
Dr. GUERRA (Cuba) said that the document prepared by the
Secretariat, when considered as a whole, provided an excellent basis for
working out a questionnairee; talking account of the complexity of the questions
involved, it was a draft as good as could be prepared by any group of
persons with the same terms of reference. A working party would probably
not be able to improve on it to any considerable extent if no further
Positive directives were given by the Contracting Parties. It. had been
pointed out that a questionnaire should be comprehensive, realistic,
well-balanced and to the point. In his own opinion, the ruling consideration
in drawing up the questionnaire was that it should serve its purpose,
requiring only necessary and relevant information but no more. Dr. Guerra,
agreeing with the representative of Finland , thought that the purpose of
the questionaaire being the preparation of a comprehensive and useful
report, it might be advisable to break down the more general questions to
ensure more even answers, susceptible of analysis. But above all, the
primary consideration in devising a questionnaire, which the working party
should keep in mind, was that all questions should have a definite purpose
and be directly relevant to the provisions of the Agreement
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) said that countries which did not apply such
restrictions should attempt to understands the point of view of those which
did. The United States representative had stressed the business man's point
of view. Needless to say, the individual's need should be met to the fullest
extent consistent with the welfare of the community. But, the result of
such licence for the satisfaction of the individual might, in fact, be
disastrous for the country as a whole. When a country had balance-of-payment
difficulties, it was unreasonable to expect it to relax the necessary
restrictions. That the subject was a complicated one was no reason why the
questionnaire should be equally complicated. Clarity and brevity were the
first qualities in literature, and would seem to be virtues which should also
be aimed at by financial experts. Above all, the experts should not attempt to GATT/CP.5/SR. 12
live in a world of their own and take no account of realities. With all
its facilities for statistical work. even the United Kingdom had thought it
difficult to answer all these questions, and the mrjority of the other
countries would naturally find it impossible to face up to the task.
The questionnaire should be drafted with strict refurence to circumstances,
so that it could be answered by countries with fewer resources.
Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czecheslevakia) -pointed out that the draft
questionnaire had. been. prepared along the as the one used for
the preparation of the first report under Article, XIV: 1(g).A reipetition
of information should be avoided so as to lessen the work. of both the
Secretariat and national governments. Be agreed with other speakers
that the questions proposed by the Belgian.representative exceeded the
requirements of the General Agreement and would and an unnecessary burden
on all parties. concerned to the extent of emangering the preper functioning
of the Agreement. Hewever, the Contracting Parties were entitleld to
detailed information on things which were . to. them and apparently
inconsistent with the provisions the Agreement. The arrangements
referred to in Secticn V of the questionaire were entirely strange to the
Contracting Parties and should be given full examination to see whether they
were harmful to the interests of countries outside such groups, and whether
they were in direct conflict with the provisiors of Article I: 1 or
Article XIII: 3.
The CHAIRMAN outlined the past developments which had. led to the
preparation of the draft questionnaire by the Secretariat. A yiear ago a
questionnaire had been issued for the preparation of the first report
under Article XIV: 1(g). The report was eventually drawn up on the basis
of the replies to. that questionnaire, and was considered by the Contracting
Parties at the Fourth Session. Experience had shown. that questions of the
general a character lea tc. unevenr answer.-, hich ere d'ifficult to: utilize in
drawing up a report. The Working Parties on Balanco-cf-Payments Questions
and on Quantitative Restrictions at that Session, came to the same con-
clusion that questionnaires should be of a more detailed character. To
relieve the burden of governments, the Secretariat had been instructed
to draft a single questionnaire for the preparation of the review and the
report under Article XII and Article XIV respectively. The Secretariat
in preparing the draft had been guided by the discussions at previous
sessions, and by the instructions of the Contracting Parties. A preliminary
draft statement was issued, by the Secretariat on 10 July for comments.
Rerplies were received from certain governments, and, with the exception
of the one from India which had arrived two. late for the purp se, had been
taken into. account in preparing the final draft. These comments,as well
as all relevant at , would be available to the working party which was to
be established. Attention should be drawn to paragraph 2 of the General
Notes preceding the draft questionnaire, in which it was pointed cut that
contracting parties need not repeat.information already furnished.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway), referring to question 13, stated (that the
working party would be well advosed in touch with the Secretariat
of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation with a view to getting
systematic information on the arrangements made under its Convention, as
confusion might arise if each of the contracting parties who were members of
that group should attempt to suplly information independently in answer to,
that question. The same suggestion would equally apply to, other groups, such
as the Sterling Area countries. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 12
Page 4
The CHAIRMAN then propsed the following Terms of Reference and
Membership for the Working Party, which were approved by the Contracting
Parties:
Terms of Reference:
(1) To prepare and submit to the Contracting Parties for
consideration and adoption a draft questionnaire for the
review of import restrictions, required by Article XII: 4(b),
and the second report on the discriminatory application of
restrictions under the transitional period arrangements
of Article XIV, required by Article XIV: 1(g), taking into
account the questionnaire prepare by the Secretariat
(GATT/CP. 5/5) and suggestions put forward if the course
of the discussion in the plenary meetings of the Contracting
Parties;
(2) to: make such other suggestions as will facilitate the reviews
referred to in (1) above;
(3) to consider and make proposals regarding the collection of
information on the application of quantitative restrictions
under other provisions of the General Agreement notably the
provisions referred to in paragraph 16 on page 5 of
GATT/CP. 4/33.
Membership
Chairman: Dr. J. A. GUERRA (Cuba)
Members: Belgium Italy
Canada New Zealand
Chile Union of 13 ith Africa
Cuba United Kingdom
France United States
India
The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | fh033mf3057 | Summary Record of the Twelth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, 6 March 1950, at 10.30 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 9, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 09/03/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.12 and GATT/CP.4/SR.8-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fh033mf3057 | fh033mf3057_90270095.xml | GATT_142 | 2,909 | 18,325 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON RESTRICTED LIMITED C
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.4/S4.12 9 March 1950
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on
Monday, 6 March 1950, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed : 1. Modification of Schedule XXII (Denmark)
2. Tariff Levels - Statement by the
Netherlands Delegation.
1. Modification of Schedule XXII (Denmark) - (GATT/CP/51)
The CHAIRMAN said that the Executive Secretary wished to
explain the reason for the period of 15 days provided for in
the last paragraph of this document.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY explained that normally delegations
were given 30 days to notify objections to proposed modifications.
The period of 15 days had been provided for in this instance
at the request of the Danish Delegation who had explained that
Denmark wished to place the Schedule before its Parliament during
the middle of March, and if the normal period of 30 days were
adhered to it would not be possible to present the Schedule in
the form it would finally have if the modification were approved.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) hoped that the Contracting
Parties would be able to accept the brief period of time and
explained the modification contained in the document. This
change had been agreed to by Norway, the country with which it
was originally negotiated.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) supported the request of the Danish
Delegation and hoped that the period of 15 days would be agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN said that if this change were approved the two
modifications proposed would be referred to the Working Party on
Rectifications and Modifications at the end of the 15-day period,
This was agreed !' GATT/CP.4/SR. 12
Page 2,
2.Tariff Levels - Statement by the Netherlnds Delegation
The CHAIRMAN explained that the Netherlands delegate
had requested to be allowed to make a general statement on
tariffs; while the statement did not relate specifically to
any one item on the Agenda, it concerned several questions being
discussed at this Session and yet was of too broad a nature to
be referred to any one of the Working Parties. Consequently
he was sure that the contracting parties would wish to hear
this statement in a full meeting.
Mr. SPIERENBURG (Netherlands) stated that he felt it
important to enquire whether the purposes of the General
Agreement as set forth in the Preamble were in fact being
achieved. It had been agreed both at the meetings which
drew up. the General Agreement and at earlier meetings of the
Contracting Parties that quantitative restrictions were the
principal deterrents to commerce. He did not intend to
question the Articles of the Agreement concerning quantitative
restrictions and wished to emphasize that his country intended
to continue complying with them. However, these Articles
had been drawn up two years ago and it was necessary now,
in the light of the events of the past two years, to look into
the development and practice of these principles. Several
countries in Europe had recently liberalized trade among
themselves in so far as quantitative restrictions were concerned.
The Netherlands had taken part in this liberalization and 60%
of its commerce with other European countries was affected.
His country had expected that this step would be to the general
advantage of countries in Europe and would result in a greater
freedom of trade. This, however, had not proved to be
entirely the case, since there were certain countries which
with the relaxation of quantitative restrictions brought
into operation their tariff which was in certain cases more
restrictive even than the quantitative restrictions had been.
It might be argued that this was not a matter for complaint singe
negotiations had taken place in 1947 with regard to the tariffs
of all of these countries. However, at the time of these
negotiations tariffs had been relatively unimportant since
quantitative restrictions were so widely in effect. Furthermore GATT/CP.4/SR. 12
Page 3.
negotiations were based upon the rule that countries with
high tariffs should accept the binding of a low tariff as a
concession in itself and make substantial reductions in
return for such a binding, in order to achieve a greater measure
of balance between the various tariffs. That aim had,
however, not been completely achieved at the Geneva negotiations
and consequently it could not be said that the ultimate goal of
the General Agreement was being reached.
This meant that the low tariff countries were in an
unfavourable and dangerous position for the future.
Quantitative restrictions under the General Agreement could
be applied in general only for balance of payments reasons and
he felt that the time could now be seen when multilateral
payments agreements would be possible and these reasons for
applying quantitative restrictions consequently diminished.
However, low tariff countries would find themselves in the
position that owing to high tariffs elsewhere they would be
unable to find markets for their exports with consequent
ilI effects upon their balances of payments.
Secondly their industries were in an unfavourable position
vis-à-vis the industries of high tariff countries since no
competition within the markets of the latter would be possible,
whereas high tariff countries would find no barrier to
competing in the domestic markets of low tariff countries. The
Benelux countries, with a general average of duties of 5.6%
certainly had one of the lowest tariffs in Europe. They wished
to compete in international commerce, but the competition must
be on an equal basis.
Thirdly in order to reach the goal of a wide market for
goods it was necessary to remove not only quantitative
restrictions but other barriers to the free movement of goods,
To sum up, he felt that equality of access to the internal
markets of countries between high and low tariff countries
was an important problem requiring examination.
Mr. Spierenburg wished to set forth the position of the
low tariff countries as it would be at the start of the
Torquay negotiations. Unfortunately it could not be expected GATT/CP.4/SR. 12
Page 4.
that countries with even a very high tariff would be willing
to make concessions without receiving concessions in return.
This, however, meant an impossible situation for the countries
with a low tariff. While not expecting that tariffs could
be brought to a level of entire equality he did feel that such
duties as were prohibitively high and of a more restrictive
character even than quantitative restrictions should be
brought to a more reasonable level without compensation. If
this were not done and access to domestic markets of other
countries were found to be impossible, he considered that his
country would have the right to maintain or establish the
necessary restrictions to protect the interests threatened
in this way. These measures should not be in force longer
than the period of the existing prejudice and should be
subject to consultations with-the Contracting Parties.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) supported the statement
of the Netherlands delegate. He had drawn attention at a
previous meeting to the close connection between the
problem of liberalization of trade and the problem of tariffs.
As liberalization increased in Europe the question of tariffs
became of greater importance and on behalf of his own country,
which also had a very low tariff, he would have reservations.
on the question of liberalization. Unless at the Torquay
negotiations contracting parties with very high tariffs
agreed to reduce them more substantially than they had done
so hitherto his country would be unable to proceed further in
the liberalization of its trade.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) wished to clarify the position of
low tariff countries vis-à-vis the high tariffs referred to by
the Netherlands delegate and the proposal for revalidation of
the schedules. He felt that some countries supporting this
latter proposal considered an assurance of continued stability
of the tariffs more essential than their reduction and,
consequently, that renegotiations should be the exception
rather than the rule. His country was also in favour of the
idea of stability but not one which excluded a policy of
reduction of tariffs and he did not consider that it was the
intention of the General Agreement that there should be one
original negotiation at which a supposed equilibrium would be
arrived at, followed by a stabilization of that equilibrium GATT/CP. 4/SR. 12
Page 5.
and little possibility of improvement. Rather, it was his
understanding that the rates of duty were to be reviewed
periodically in order that they might be progressively
reduced. There was still a wide disparity between the tariffs
of various countries, and those with low tariffs found themselves
in the position of being unable to reduce their tariffs any
further and, as a consequence, with little expectation of
receiving concessions from countries with high tariffs. What
therefore could these countries expect to gain at Torquay unless
high tariff countries were willing to make substantial
reductions without receiving compensation in the form of
similar reductions?
Since the Contracting Parties had no coercive powers to
force high tariff countries to reduce their duties, Mr. Cassiers
thought that a resolution of the Contracting Parties should be
drawn up emphasizing the rule of the General Agreement that
binding of a low tariff was the equivalent of a concession and
should be paid for by substantial concessions on the part of
high tariff countries and, furthermore, that it should be an aim
of the tariff negotiations to reach a greater equilibrium
between the tariff levels of the various countries.
He suggested that comparisons with the negotiations of
1947 and the fact that, at that time, low tariff countries had
made concessions in the form of reductions of duties in
exchange for reductions in the higher tariffs, were no longer
applicable, and he also wished to remind delegations that at
the Geneva negotiations constant reference was made to the fact
that these were the first steps and that the concessions not made
or the duties not reduced would be reviewed in the light of
changed circumstances. Certainly his country had not envisaged
that the tariff agreements of Geneva and Annecy would continue
unchanged with a prolongation every three years.
Mr. DUHR (Luxembourg) supported the delegates of Belgium
and the Netherlands.
.Mr. TUOMINEN (Finland) stated the case of the countries
which were not members of the OEEC and said that if the OEEC
countries found the situation a difficult one it was even more
so for countries which had not the advantages of that organization. GATT/CP.4/SR.12
Page 6.
These had to suffer both high tariffs and quantitative
restrictions and, even if the former were reduced, would be
unable to compete in internal markets on account of the
latter.
Mr. JONSSON (Sweden) supported the delegates of the
Netherlands and Belgium and said that his government hoped that
the Contracting Parties would take this whole problem into
consid ration.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) agreed in general with the statement of
Mr. Spierenburg, although there were certain points of detail
he would question. He said that at London and Geneva it had
been generally realized that the time was not appropriate
for tariff negotiations. It was a time of shortages and a
sellers' market and consequently industrialists in the
various countries took very little interest in the negotiations,
a fact which probably made them easier and more rapidly
concluded. He sympathized with the low tariff countries which
were now beginning to feel the real impact of differences in
levels of tariffs. It seemed to him that this problem was
so important that it should be dealt with in a working
party, otherwise it might well prolong the Torquay negotiations.
In any case it was one that required careful consideration
either in this session or the next, and preferably in this
one.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he would not enter into
the substance of the discussion but he did wish to clarify
certain points regarding the United Kingdom proposal for
the revalidation of the Schedules. He felt that this proposal
was not quite as directly relevant to the issues raised in
this meeting as appeared from the discussion. The United
Kingdom proposal was not intended to diminish the right of
any countries to re-negotiate but was merely intended to
speed up the procedure so that the renegotiations under
Article XXVIII could be part of the Torquay negotiations and
that once these had been incorporated into a general schedule
the right to invoke the use of article XXVIII would be
renounced for the duration of the validity of the Torquay
schedules. He thought it was necessary that the global results GATT/CP. 4/SR.12
Page 7.
of the Torquay negotiations should be made firm for another
period of three years, otherwise countries would find themselves in
a difficult and insecure situation. Furthermore any widespread
use of Article XXVIII might result in a general unravelling of
concessions. He did not think that the suggestion made by
his Government for revalidation of the Schedules made the
position of the Benelux and Scandinavian countries any more
difficult. He also wished to emphasize that it was certainly
not intended to freeze the results of tariff negotiations at any
particular level. His government wished for a maximum of
stability but not rigidity. He hoped therefore that this
problem would not be sent to the Working Party on the
Revalidation of the Schedules.
Mr. Shackle also expressed the hope that any measures
which the Benelux countries might decide to adopt to compensate
for their difficulties would not be such as to seriously weaken
the structure of the tariff schedules which were being built up.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) considered that the suggestion that
an adjustment of the balance of tariff levels be made under the
provisions of Article XXVIII during the Torquay negotiations
would lead to the general increase of some tariffs, which was
scarcely desirable. This Article did not provide for a general
review of the existing balance but only for a cessation of
application of concessions. He agreed that the United
Kingdom proposal for revalidation was a very reasonable one,
but he hoped that a solution to the problem of the low-tariff
countries would be found other than the negative solution of
raising tariffs, but something approaching the suggestion he
had previously made that any further binding of low tariffs
required as compensation a substantial reduction of high ones.
Mr. SVEINBJORNSSON (Denmark) said that he considered the
United Kingdom proposal to rebind the present Schedules as a
minimum and agreed with the general intention of that proposal.
If, however, no satisfactory progress is made in the field of
lowering tariffs he would have to reserve his position.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) wished to comment upon the general
question of lowering tariffs although at the beginning of the
discussion he had been under the impression that the discussion
applied only to intra-European trade. He too agreed that the GATT/CP.4/SR. 12
Page 8.
principle of lowering tariffs was a very laudable one but he did
not think it could be achieved any more rapidly than originally
envisaged. A mere study of the incidence of the tariff was not
enough, A study of the burden of the tariff involved considerations
such as its relation to internal taxes, examination of the
budgetary position of the country and also whether the tariff
were a "scientific" tariff. The fact that most countries had
"scientific" tariffs, which implied low tariffs for raw materials
and high tariffs for manufactured goods, was the reason why
some countries were high and some low tariff countries. Naturally
a country which imported almost. entirely raw materials would have
a lower tariff than one importing chiefly manufactured goods,
and by the same token a tariff with a very low incidence of
duty could nevertheless be a high tariff for the country involved
and vice-versa.
If this question were taken up in a working party he would
ask that the working party or the secretariat make an intensive
study of the tariff policy of various countries, with all the
necessary ramifications.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Netherlands representative had
raised important questions fundamental to the Agreement. It was
clear that many delegates had not taken part in the discussions
because of lack of time to study the matters and that further
discussion would be necessary before the question of setting up
a working party could be considered. The statement was chiefly
concerned with the tariff negotiations to take place at Torquay.
He hoped that in later discussions representatives would direct
their attention to the best manner in which to give effect to
paragraph 1 (d), section III, of the Memorandum on Tariff
Negotiations where it was, stated that the binding of a low tariff
was an equivalent concession to the reduction of a high one.
This was one of the cardinal principles governing the tariff
negotiations and there had never been an adequate discussion in
the Contracting Parties of the methods by which t; is principle
could best be carried out. Certainly the questions raised by
the Netherlands delegate went far beyond the question of
revalidation. He suggested that discussion on this question be
adjourned for a week. GATT/CP.4/SR.12
Page 9.
Mr. WALKER (Australia) and Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom)
supported this suggestion, the latter because he thought it
advisable to have a discussion as early as possible since, if
a working party were found necessary, considerable time
would be needed and also because the question affected other
discussions of the Contracting Parties and the various working
parties.
This was agreed.
The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | tw928yz5814 | Summary Record of the Twentieth Meeting : Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on Monday, 11 December 1950 at 5 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, December 13, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 13/12/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.5/SR.20 and GATT/CP.5/SR.17-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tw928yz5814 | tw928yz5814_90270148.xml | GATT_142 | 3,669 | 22,923 | GENERAL AGREEMENT ON
TARIFFS AND TRADE GATT/CP.5/SR.20
13 December 1950
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fifth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING
Held at the Marine Spa, Torquay, on
Monday, 11 December 1950 at 5 p.m.
Chairrman: Mr. TCNKIN (Australia) followed by
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark)
Subjects discussed: 1. Composition of Working Party 'L" on the
Continuing Administration of the agreement
2. Item 18 - Effect of U.K. Purchase Tax on
certain Imports into the United Kingdom with
reference to Article III (GATT/CP.5/12)
3. Item 31 - Subsidies (GATT/CP.5/36).
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. TONKIN) explained that he was in the Chair to receive a
statement regarding the composition of the Working Party "L" on the Continuing
Administration of the Agreement.
Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) raised a point of order. When the
Contracting Parties had established the membership of Working Party "L"
Denmark had been proposed by the Chairman and elected a member of the Working
Party. After the meeting the Norwegian representative had expressed the
interest of his Delegation in being a member of this Working Party. There
had not been time during the meeting for the usual consultation on matters of this
kind between members of the Scandinavian delegations. In order to meet the
wish expressed by the Norwegian representative, he asked the Contracting
Parties to permit the withdrawal of Denmark from the Working Party and to
substitute Norway. He added that his Delegantion continued to have great
interest in the discussions in the Worrking Party and would be content to follow
these discussions as an observer. He also wished to emphasize that this should
not be a precedent for the future. Finally, he said that there was full
agreement between the Norwegian, Swedish and Danish Delegations on
this matter.
It was agreed that the composition of Working Party "L" should be altered
by the inclusion of Norway instead of Denmark.
The CHAIRMAN then called attention to Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure
and in accordance with this Rule, Mr. SVEINBJØRNSSON (Denmark) was unanimously
elected Chairman for this meeting on the proposal of Mr. ISBISTER (Canada)
supported by Mr. LEHTINEN (Finland).
2. Item 18 - Effect of the United Kingdom Purchase Tax on certain imports
into the United Kingdom, with reference to Article III (GATT/GP.5/12)
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) explained that his Delegation had
placed this matter on the .genda for the Contracting Parties with great
reluctance as they considered it a matter which could be better settled between
the two countries concerned. They had, however, been trying for several years
to obtain a solution to this question and it was only the unsuccessfulness of
these efforts that had induced them to place the matter before the Contracting
Parties. The Netherlands Delegation was convinced that the utility system had
not been introduced with any protectionist purpose in mind. The net result, GATT/CP.5/SR. 20
Page 2.
however, had been a very high protection for certain industries. Furthermore,
the scope of tax exemption for utility goods had been widened and extended
even to the export market, The need for finding a solution was therefore
becoming more urgent. His delegation in their statement had alluded to the
procedure under Article XXIII. They did not, however, propose that a
working party be instituted now for this purpose. His delegation still
hoped that it would be possible to settle the matter without further reference
to the Contracting Parties. He would like to hear the statement by the United
Kingdom representative before making further suggestions.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) made the following statement:
"The Netherlands representative has spoken to the paper submitted
by his country's delegation which is before us this afternoon. I
would say - at the cutset of my own remarks - that I do not propose,
and have no wish, to take any exception to the case in regard to the
United Kingdom purchased tax as developed either in the papers or by
Dr. van Blankenstein himself. Both statements of the position seem
t .:o. fair andl.;derate and I would not quarrel with the presentation
of the facts of the position.
"iJ-r *,would I suggest that there is anything unreasonable in the
decision of the Netherlands Delegation to take the matter before the
Contracting Parties on this occasion. It is quite true that some time
has elapsed since the Goverrnment of the Netherlands brought the matter
to the notice of the United Kingdom authorities and asked that, in some
way or other, means ;ight be devised whereby goods imported from the
Netherlands - and this would no doubt apply to other sources also -
could be given the same treatment in regard to exemption from purchase
tax as is given to comparable home produced goods. It is true that a
formal approach was made by the Netherlands Kinister of Foreign
Affairs to the Government of the United Kingdom in March of this year.
"Ín the circumstances I doubt whether I need go into the
history of the utility system in this country or into the relation's
between the utility system and the purchase tax insofar as they
bear upon the matter now before us. The system dates back to the
early years of the war and it has never been suggested - Dr. van
Blankenstein was careful himself not to suggest - that the object
of the system was protective. But that it has in fact come to have a
protective effect in practice is a mattet which I would not deny and
this, of course, is the point at issue. Our realisation of the
discrimination in respect of imported goods which the existing
pratice involves has been demonstrated by our extension to certain
classes of imported goods with our own utility goods of the
purchase tax exemptions enjoyed by the latter. I entirely realise
that this by no means fully with the problem, but I mention it
to show that we have been ready to consider sympathetically, and to
take action upon the representations made to us by the other Governments. GATT/CP.5/SR. 20
Page 3.
"I can assure the Contracting Parties that the greatest.
attention has been paid to the problem of devising means to
adjust the system to all those other categories of imports which
are adversely affected and, as the Netherlands Authorities would
claim, affected unfairly by our purchase tax arrangements. For
some considerable time the various United Kingdom Departments
concerned have been engaged in a comprehensive and detailed study
of the technical difficulties involved, in a genuine anxiety to
reach a solution acceptable to the Netherlands and indeed to
other countries which habitually export to the United Kingdom
those goods which, if produced here, would, in certain circumstances,
qualify as of the utility class and therefore be exempted from
the tax in question. I would go further and say that we are
grateful to the Netherlands representative for not having pressed
for the consideration of this item by the Contracting Parties to take
place immediately the session started. This was in order to give
us a little longer to study the matter in all its aspects.
"I regret that this study has not yet been completed, but I
can say that it has advanced to a point at which it has been
possible for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to
authorise me to say that they are working on a solution to the
problem, and are very hopeful that it will be possible for the
discrimination, with no very great further delay, to be removed,
I am glad to be able to held cut this prospect of action to
satisfy the complaint which has been made by the Netherlands
Government. On the other hand, I regreat that, despite the
late date in the present session at which -- through the courtesy
of the Netherlands Delegation - this matter has been taken
up, Iam not able to afford full satisfaction by saying that
it will be, possible for the discrimination to be removed
immediately. I believe that those who have had occasion to study
the problem from its various administrative and legal spects will
readily accept the fact that it is, as I have suggested, one of
considerable complexity and difficulty. I trust that the
Contracting Parties will accept the assurance which I have been
authorised to give. Iwould also like to say that, should it be
the wish of the Contracting Parties, or the Netherlands Delegation
in particular as the initiators of this discussion, to retain the
item on the agenda so that it can be discussed further if
necessary at our next session, I should feel that that would be
an entirely reasonable course, and one which would not, I think,
add greatly to our labours on that occasion. " GATT/CP.5/SR. 20
Page 4.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) wished to associate the Canadian Delegation
with what had been said by the Netherlands representative about the
discriminatory nature of the Utility Scheme in the United Kingdom, under
which numerous consumer goods had been exempted from purchase tax. With
minor exceptions, the utility schemes had police only to goods produced
in the United Kingdom. Canadian manufacturers had been concerned for some
time about the, burden of discrimination thus created against their goods
and the Canadian Government had on several occasions made official
representations to the Government of the United Kingdom in connection
with the difficulties encountered by the rubber footwear industry, in
particular.
For those reasons, he welcomed the significant and valuable statement
which had been made on behalf the United Kingdom. His delegation would
accept the assurances implicit in this statement that some means would be
found to rectify the situation. Since the Canadian Government first took
the matter up in London, much time had elapsed while alternative methods of
solution were considered in the United Kingdom. His government was
conversant with the complexity of the problems. At the same time, he
expressed disappointment that the United Kingdom had not yet found it
possible to advise the future plans for the utility schemes. The
Canadian delegation accepted, however, the procedures proposed and agreed
that the item should remain on the agenda for the next session of the
Contracting Parties. At the same time, his delegation felt confident,
in the light of the statement made on behalf of the United Kingdom, that
there would be no need to discuss this case at the next session, and he was
instructed to express the hope that a solution would be acted upon
in the very near future.
Finally, he proposed that the statement of the United Kingdom
Delegation be reproduced in full and that a suitable press release be
issued on this discussion.
Mr. LECUYER (France) thanked the United Kingdom representative for his
statement. Certain French industries also had been affected by the
utility scheme and his Government had entered into consultations with the
United Kingdom Government on this matter. He would agree to take note of the
United Kingdom statement at this session and to keep the item on the agenda- 4
of the next session for further discussion if necessary.
Mr. DI 1CLJ (Italy) explianed that the Application of the purchase
tax had long been considered by his Government to be of the highest importance
and consequently he had heard the statement of the United Kingdom represen-
tative with great satisfaction. He hoped that the situation would shortly be
improved, thanks to the measures which the United Kingdom proposed to take
He enumerated the principal difficulties of the present regulations and cases
of discrimination which could result, and wondered whether, even against
the intention of the United Kingdom Government, these regulations did not
in fact become a system of administrative protection. He was therefore
glad to take note of the reassuring statement which had been made.
In this connections, Mr. DI NOL... wished to draw the attention of the
Contracting Parties to the complexity of the problem of protectionism.
The Contracting Parties were making great efforts to reduce and stabilise tariff
protection and barriers to trade. There was a danger; however, that '
these efforts would achieve only a part of their purpose if other barriers to
trade which, under various names, and when added to the customs duties, were
capable of turning a seemingly moderate protective system into a highly pro-
tectionist one were not also investigated. He did not refer tó any country in par-
ticular but thought this was a general problem worthy of examination.: This study GATT/CP.5/SR. 20
Page 5.
would bring out some of the causes of the present disparities in the tariff
leve1 of different countries.
Dr. van BLANKENSTEIN (Netherlands) thanked the United Kingdom repres-
entative for his statement. His Government of course shared the regret
that no final conclusion could be reached at this session, The confidence of
the Netherlands Government that the problem could be solved without taking up
too much of the time of the Contracting Parties had been justified and he
agreed to keep this matter on the Agenda for the next session to be taken up
if it were then necessary. He supported the proposals of the Canadian
representative that the United Kingdom statement be reproduced in full.
Concerning the matter of publicity, it was clear that the task of his
Government and others would be cased if full publicity were given to the
British representatives statement. This might, however, cause difficulties
for the British Government and he therefore felt that the British delegation
should agree on the degree of publicity to be given to that statement.
Dr. BYSTRICKY (Czechoslcvakia) said that the Czechoslovak Government
had had the some experience as the Netherlands and others in that the
purchase tax was collected in a discriminatory manner on a great many
imported goods where many identical United Kingdom goods were exempted.
This was, of course, at variance with Article III, His Government had
also made representations to the United Kingdom Government on this matter and
had been told that it was under study. He understood that the utility
scheme had been introduced as a war measure and hoped that some arrangement
would be now arrived at soon eonugh to obviate the need to place the matter
on the agenda of the next session.
The CHAIRMAN said that discussion indicated the importance all
countries attached to the problem. The representatives taking part in the
discussion had expressed -their confidence that a result satisfactory to all
would be reached in a short time. There remained the question of publicity and
the records of this meeting.
Sir Stephen HOLMES *(United Kingdom) agreed with the Canadian proposal
that his statement be produced in full. It was for the Contracting
Parties to decide on the question of press release and his delegation would
try to agree with the Information Section on a suitable text. He thanked
Dr. van Blankenstein particularly for the friendly way in which the, British
statement had been received. He also thanked other delegations for their
friendly replies. He assumed that no reply was required from him on the
more general remarks of the Italian representative. Al1 delegations were
of course concerned that concessions should not be frustrated by unnecessary
administrative regulations. He hoped that it was not suggested that his
Government was a particular offender in this matter. He looked forward to
the time when all unnecessary administrative regulations could be abolished
and insofar as his Government was concerned, the matter would naturally be
given all consideration.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Netherlands delegation for raising this
important question and The United Kingdom representative for his reply. The
better would be retained on the agenda for the Sixth Session and it was
hoped that a satisfactory solution could be arrived at in the meantime.
3. Subsidies (GATT/CP.5/36)
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY wished at clarify two points. The last
paragraph referred to the production of a single document containing all
the replies. This would not, of course, be published but would be
circulated as a restricted document to the contracting parties. The GATT/CP.5/SR. 20 Page 6.
intention was to issue the documents in a more accessible and useful form
for study. As to paragraph (b) and the proposal that failure to reply would
be considered as a negative reply, the object was merely to establish a
complete record. It seemed undesirable that the position of certain
contracting parties should be left in doubt because of failure to reply.
If it was agreed that a compilation as suggested in the last paragraph
should be undertaken, notice would be given to the countries which had not
replied by the date on which the compilation would be issued. If there
were still no reply forthcoming, they would be recorded as having notified
that they did not maintain the measures in question.
U SAW OHN TIN (Burma) said that he thought it was correct to construe
the failure to reply as a negative reply, but he had not as yet received
instructions from his Government.
Mr. GUMUCIO (Chile) said that his country maintained no subsidies and
had considered that it was not therefore necessary to make any reply.
The CHAIRMAN put sub-paragraph (a) t. the meeting.
Mr. EVANS (United States) hoped it would be made clear that in taking
note the Contracting Parties had not in fact examined the notifications and
that they would have the right to examine them any time in the future.
The CHAIRMAN said that it would be made clear in the record that any
problems arising, out of the notification of subsidies could be raised at any
time.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) agreed with the Chairman's interpretation. He
wished to enquire what contracting parties should do to correct any errors
or deal with any facts which they considered to be mis-stated in statements
of other contracting parties. He thought it would be useful to have replies
compiled as proposed by the Executive Secretary.
Mr. DI NOL, (Italy) considered that the documentation submitted up to
now was incomplete and unequal and that the compilation would be more
useful if, before the information was collected in one document, those
countries which had sent merely summary statements well as those which
had not replied at all, were asked to complete the information submitted. All
the material thus compiled could be submitted to a working party at a
later session for investigation in order to clarify the situation with regard
to subsidies.
Subsidies were a very important aspect of the general trade policy
of governments and it would be interesting for the Contracting Parties
to investigate this matter.
The CHAIRMAN said that any compilation made now would only be a
working document. Any countries which wished to complete their statements
would have the right to do so. A time limit would be established for
supplementary statements to be submitted and the Secretariat would then
produce the compilation. At the Sixth Session the Contracting Parties
could decide what further action, if any, be taken on this matter.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) thought that Article XVI imposed a clear
enough obligation on the contracting parties to supply certain information
to the Contracting Parties as a whole. He believed that the action taken
at the Fourth Session calling for notifications was sufficient to draw
the attention of contracting parties to their obligation to supply this
material and to the fact that this obligation was a continuing one. GATT/CP. 5/SR. 20
Page 7.
Any changes in the information submitted should, of course, also be
notified. Furthermore, it was his opinion that the best and more
complete replies would be used as a guide by countries in submitting their
information in the future. With regard to the suggestion of the Italian
representative that further information be sought with a view to an
investigation, he felt that it would be premature to decide now that such an
investigation would be undertaken at the Sixth Session, for which a heavy
programme was already contemplated. Any individual contracting party which
felt that serious prejudice was caused or threatened would certainly
consider bringing the matter before the Contracting Parties as a whole, He
therefore supported the proposal of the Executive Secretary.
Mr. EVANS (United States) was in general agreement with the remarks of the
New Zealand representative. It was probably premature to decide now whether
subsidy reports should be considered at the next session. He proposed that
the Executive Secretary be authorized to notify to contracting parties the
date on which a collection would be begun with the request that any
countries which had not as yet submitted information should do so and any
which had submitted summary replies should supplement them. This would
make the compilation more valuable without the need of any formal decision.
With regard to sub-paragraph (k), he proposed a change in the wording to
make it clear that the absence of reply should be considered as a
notification that no subsidies were maintained.
Dr. BOTHA (Union of South Africa) considered that the, countries who;
had not replied should be asked specifically if this meant that they did not
maintain subsidy measures.
It was agreed to follow the procedure proposed by the United States
representative with a specific request to countries which had not replied
as proposed by the South African representative.
The CHAIRMAN added that governments could then give consideration to
the various replies and if a country considered any reply inaccurate it
could approach the country in question and transmit its comments to that
country.
Sir Stephen HOLMES (United Kingdom) agrred with the procedure proposed
but enquired as to the situation of acceding, governments.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY suggested that the compilation might be issued on
1.May with a dedline of April 15 for the submission of supplementary
statements. With regard to the question of the United Kingdom representative,
there was a precedent established at Annecy; acceding governments had
been invited to supply information which, at the time they became
contracting parties, they would be required to supply. It might be
appropriate to do the same in this case.
This was agreed and the meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. |
GATT Library | gm231rt6477 | Summary Record of the Twentieth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, April 3rd 1950 at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, April 3, 1950 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 03/04/1950 | official documents | GATT/CP.4/SR.20, GATT/CP.4/SR.20+21(Engl.), and CP.4/SR.19-21(Fr.) | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gm231rt6477 | gm231rt6477_90270109.xml | GATT_142 | 3,227 | 20,431 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON GATT/CP.4/SR.20
3 April 1950
TARIFFS AND TRADE ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
CONTRACTING PARTIES
Fourth Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, April 3rd 1950 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Subjects discussed: 1. Request for a Temporary Modification
in Second Item 771 of Part I of
Schedule XX.
2. Report of Working Party "D" on Quanti-
tative Restrictions.
3. Report of Working Party "C" on Parti-
cipation of Switzerland in 1950 Tariff
Negotiations.
4. Review of Brazilian Internal Taxes.
1. Request for Temporary Modification in Second Item 771 of
Part I of Schedule XX - (GATT/CP/56 and Add. 1)
Mr. EVANS (United States) explained the nature of the
request and emphasized certain points in the Statement circu-
lated by his delegation (GATT/CP/56). It was proposed that the
decision contained in document GATT/CP/56/Add.1 be adopted by
the Contracting Parties.
Mr. ISBISTER (Canada) confirmed the statement made by
Mr. Evans to the effect that his Government, the only contracting
party which would be materially affected by the proposed waiver,
had been consulted and had agreed to its adoption.
In accordance with the provisions of Article XXV:5 (a),
a vote was taken and the decision was approved by 20 votes to 0.
Mr. EVANS (United States), on behalf of his Government,
thanked those contracting parties which took part in the decision
for their sympathetic consideration, and in particular to the
Government of Canada for agreeing to the waiver.
2. Report of Working Party "DI" on Quantitative Restrictions
(GATT/CP. 4/33 )
Dr. WALKER (Australia), Chairman of Working Party "D",
introduced the report and drew attention to the more important
points therein. With reference to paragraph 14 of the Report, GATT/CP.4/SR.20
Page 2.
he particularly pointed out that there were one or two cases
discussed by the Working Party which were not mentioned specifi-
cally in the Report, the reason being that the discussion of
these particular cases was not strictly within the scope of the
mandate of the Working Party. For example, the question a rose
whether it was permissible for a Government to stipulate that
exporters of a certain commodity must purchase that commodity
from local producers at a price corresponding to the price
prevailing on the world market. This was not remarked upon in
the Report as it was thought that such a regulation would be a
normal operation within the terms of the General Agreement.
The CHAIRMAN said that the doubt expressed at the beginning
of the Session on the wisdom of discussing this item had been
dispelled by the outcome of the Working Partyts deliberations.
This useful survey might be regarded as one of the most
constructive steps taken by the Contracting Parties; the
Working Party had undoubtedly laid a sound foundation for the
future consideration of quantitative restrictions.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) agreed that the discussion had proved
to be extremely fruitful. In a world in which bade barriers
and restrictions were encountered everywhere, it was nut surprising
that the protectionist mentality should be gaining ground even
in those countries which, by the nature of their trade relations,
had every reason to be free-trade minded. If the Contracting
Parties had any faith in the principle of multilateral trade
the recommendations embodied in paragraph 25 of the Report would
seem to be the minimum they could adopt to that end. However,
he would point out that the language of paragraph 4 (a) and
paragraph 22 seemed to stress the exceptions to the rule of
unrestricted trade rather than to the rule itself. Referring
to paragraph 24, Mr. CASSIERS concluded that, for the full
implementation of the provisions of the Agreement, contracting
parties should not hesitate to resort to the procedures laid
down in the Agreement.
There being no further general comments on the Report, this
was considered section by section. In considering Section III,
Mr. RODRIGUES (Chile) said that, although he was not opposed
to the recommendation embodied in paragraph 25 (i), he would
have to abstain from accepting it in the absence of positive
instructions from his Government. He would, however, inform
the Secretariat of the views of his Government on this Report
within a few days. GATT/CP. 4/SR.20
page 3
The CHAIRMAN said that due note would be taken of the
remarks made by the Chilean representative.
The Report as a whole was approved.
Mr. KOELMYER (Ceylon) said that he would take the opportu-
nity to make a reference which was directly related to the
subject under discussion but which had not been studied by the
Working Party owing to its restricted terms of reference.
Members of the OEEC, in their recent efforts to liberalize
international trade, had based their considerations not only on
the relative "softness" or "hardness" of currencies, but also
on the political relationships of countries. As a result
countries which were of the same currency group but outside
membership of the OEEC were discriminated against. It was not
the intention of the Ceylon delegation to raise the issue or
press for its discussion at this session, but it was thought
useful to bring the matter to the attention of the contracting
parties.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) was confident that all
contracting parties must be sympathetic to the statement made
by the Ceylon representative, but he was equally certain that
it would/the last wish of the OEEC countries to create diffi-
culties for countries net belonging to that group.
Dr. WALKER (Australia) said that his delegation, though not
intending to raise the question, was also obliged to study
closely the developments which were taking place in this regard.
Further action by his Government would depend on the manner in
which the course of events affected the interests of Australia.
He was satisfied with the attitude of contracting parties which
had expressed their willingness to give due regard to matters
affecting Australia's trade.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) said that the concern expressed
by the Ceylon representative was shared by his Government,
but in preliminary discussions with certain European countries
his Government had been satisfied that there was no intention
on the part of these Governments to neglect the principle of
multilateral trade.
Mr. VERNON (United States) said that his Delegation, as
the sponsor of this item on the agenda, was fully appreciative
of the spirit of the contracting parties which had completed
their task so successfully. The contrast between the initial
hesitations in considering this subjects which were under-
standably caused by the enormity of the task, and the satis-
factory results, could not but be regarded as a great tribute
to the Working Party, and especially to its Chairman. Page 4.
The CHAIRMAN said that due note would be taken of the
statement made by the representative of Ceylon together with
the ensuing discussion.
3. Report of Working Party "C" on Participation of Switzerland
in the 1950 Tariff Negotiations - (GATT/CP.4/40)
Having expressed his regret that Mr. Suetens, the Chairman
of the Working Party, was unable to attend the meeting to present
the report, the CHAIRMAN introduced the document and outlined
its contents, drawing particular attention to paragraph 7, which
embodied the conclusions reached by the Working Party.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom
had always been in favour of giving full consideration to the
Swiss question. It was therefore a cause for regret that, after
a thorough study, the Working Party had been once more unable
to resolve the problem. While neither the Contracting Parties
nor the Swiss government had been able to propose a solution
which would meet, without impairment to the spirit of the
Agreement, that Government's apprehensions as to certain of the
provisions of the Agreement, it by no means meant that the door
had been closed to Switzerland's participation. The Contracting
Parties would no doubt be pleased to welcome the acherence of
that Government to the Agreement if the later could find a way
consistent with the provisions of the GATT, to meet the diffi-
culties it envisaged.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that the Unied States was
no less anxious than the United Kingdom to see Switzerland
admitted into the Agreement. The present failure to find a
solution was by no means an indication that the participation
of Switzerland in the Agreement was impossible or that the Swiss
problem was insoluble under the terms of the General Agreement.
It had been the conviction of the Working Party that the diffi-
culties encountered by Switzerland could, in fact, be dealt with
through certain provisions within the spirit and frame-work of
the Agreement.
Mr. LECUYER (France) agreed with the representatives of the
United Kingdom and the United States. Ever since the time of
the Havana Conference, when M. Philip of the French Delegation
had presided over the sub-committee on the Swiss question, the
hope had always been entertained by France that a solution could
be found. The French Government, on account of its special
relationship with Switzerland, would have been willing to accept GATT/CP . 4/SR. 20
Page 5.
exceptional solutions but had hesitated because of the harm
which might be done to the basic principles of the Agreement.
He sincerely hoped that a solution would eventually be found for
the participation by Switzerland in the work of either the
General Agreement or the I.T.O.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said that he shared the hope that
the conclusions of the Working Party Report would be acceptable
to Switzerland. His own Government; for one, would welcome the
accession of Switzerland if that country could reconsider its
position in the light of the Working Party report.
The report was considered and approved paragraph by para-
graph, and then was adopted as a whole.
The CHAIRMAN requested the representative of Belgium to
convey the thanks of the meeting to M. SUETENS for the compre-
hensive report his Working Party had submitted.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, upon the invitation of the Chair-
man, reported on his consultations with Mr. STUCKI. The
Minister had expressed his disappointment at the conclusions
of the Report which, in his opinion, denied the special position
of Switzerland which had been recognized at Havana. He could
not accept the implication that the difficulties confronting
other contracting parties and the risks they ran in accepting
the obligations of the Agreement were comparable to those which
existed in the case of Switzerland. Consequently, if the
report were made public or its contents extensively published
the Swiss Government would have to make a vigorous reply.
On his part Mr. STUCKI would prefer that a brief communication
be made to the press to the effect that the question had been
examined and that no solution had been reached. The EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY had undertaken to convey Mr. Stucki's feelings to
the Contracting Parties and to communicate to him their
decision.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that a brief communique be issued to
the press along the lines suggested by Mr. Stucki, but that
the conclusions of the report should be communicated in full
to the Swiss Government.
Mr. EVANS (United States) supported these proposals,
believing that a press release in this case should be worded as
inoffensively as possible so as to create the least obstacle
to Switzerland's adherence. Certain passages of the Report, GATT/CP. 4/SR. 20
Page 6.
though appropriate in their present places, might be misundertood
if quoted by the press. Above all, it should be made clear
in the communique that the Contracting Parties by no means
rejected Switzerland's application for accessions but had merely
failed to find a solution to meet certain conditions proposed
by that country. Mr. EVANS also proposed that this particular
Report should not be derestricted in accordance with the usual
procedure.
Mr. LECUYER (France) pointed out that the Working Party,
being conversant with past deliberations on the subject, had
not considered it necessary to bring out in its Report in full
detail the difficulties envisaged by Switzerland or the back-
ground of the problem. This being so, it was undesirable to
publish the report in its present form. He therefore supported
the Chairman's proposals.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) , agreeing with the United
States representative that the Contracting Parties should
avoid creating any obstacle to the future participation by
Switzerland in the General Agreement, was also in favour of the
proposal that a short announcement should be made to the public.
The report itself should remain restricted until a time when the
Contracting Parties should decide otherwise.
It was agreed:
(1) that a short communiqué stating that the questions
had received consideration by the Contracting Parties without
reaching a solution, be issued to. the press;
(2) that in the reply to the Government of Switzerland
the contents of the Report should be summarized and a copy
of the Report as well as the summary record of the present
meeting should be enclosed; and
(3) that document GATT/CP,4/40 should remain restricted
until a decision was made by Contracting Parties to the
contrary.
4.Review of Brazilian Internal Taxes (GATT/CP.3/42, para-
graph 19)
The CHAIRMAN recalled the proceedings of the meeting on
14th March 1950 at which the Brazilian representative, being
unable to supply information on the measures required to be
taken by his Government, had undertaken to obtain such infor-
mation and to inform the Contracting Parties before the close
of the session. GATT/CP.4/SR.20 Page 7.
Mr. TELLES RIBEIRO (Brazil) thanked the Contracting Parties
for agreeing to the extension of time for submission of the
required information. He explained that considerable delay had
been caused in the first place by the consultations between
his Government and the delegation regarding the precise require-
ments laid down in the Report of Working Party 7 of the Third
Session. The BrazilianGovernment, intending to show good
faith, had attempted to secure the modifications of the laws by
executive measures, but had been unable to accomplish it in this
manner. Upon receipt of this information, which would not be
regarded as sufficient by the materlially interested contracting
parties, his delegation had telegraphed again to the Government
asking for further informationn. According to information now
received, the executive proposals on this matter would receive
consideration by Congress by 15 April. The Brazilian repre-
sentative said that he counted on the spirit of comprehension
and sympathy of the Contracting Parties and requested them
once more to defer action until the next session. The Brazilian
Government would keep the Secretariat currently informed of any
action by the Brazilian legislature and of any other developments.
Mr. LECUYER (France) recalled the long history beginning
with the diplomatic representation made by the French Govern-
ment as early as February 1949. In view of the lengthy discus-
sions at Annecy it had been expected that the whole matter
would have been settled by the end of 1949. Although he was
sure of the good faith on the part of the Brazilian Government
and its delegation, in the circumstances he could not but reserve
the right of his Government in regard to any further action.
While not proposing any immediate measures, he would wish the
Contracting Parties to express to the Brazilian Government their
regret on the deplorable situation, especially from the point
of view of the future operation of the General Agreement.
The CHAIRMAN outlined the past actions taken by the
contracting parties on this subject, which he thought was i n
accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article XXIII. Since the Brazilian Government had failed to
fulfil its obligations, the provisions of the third sentence
of paragraph 2 of Article XXIII seemed to have become applicable.
If the Contracting Parties did not feel disposed to give full
implementation of the provisions at this stage, the most suitable
way would be to leave it to the materially affected contracting
parties, in consultation with Brazil, to consider what compen-
satory concessions could be demanded of that country and to
keep this subject on the agenda for the Fifth Session. This
procedure would have the advantage of avoiding the need to GATT/CP.4/SR. 20
Page 8.
decide immediately which were the materially affected contracting
parties.
Mr. TELLES RIBEIRO (Brazil) regretted that the CHAIRMAN
should have proposed action under Article XXIII in view of the
fact that no contracting party had made such a demand. The
delay had been due to many difficulties among which not the least
was the need for time to translate the lengthy and involved
documents. His Government had assured that Congress would
commence to give consideration to the proposals in the middle
of April with a view to giving full satisfaction to the
contracting parties, even though he was not in a position to say
what measures would be taken. In the circumstances he felt that
the Chairman had given an extremely severe ruling which was
unacceptable to his delegation.
The CHAIRMAN replied that even though no contracting party
had proposed action under Article XXIII the steps which had so
far been taken had evidently been pursuant to the provisions of
that Article. In view of the short time available at this
sessions he had only proposed that any action which individual
contracting parties might feel necessary to take under
Article XXIII should be examined at the next session.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that the Contracting Parties
would be unable to do otherwise but to examine immediately any
proposal for action under Article XXIII if it were made by a
contracting party. The Chairman's proposal seemed to have been
intended to forestall any such proposals. If the Contracting
Parties wished to postpone discussion of this subject some joint
recognition had to be given of the situation at this stage,
in view of the specific time limit laid down in the Working
Party Report of the Third Session. On the other hand, the
United States delegation wished to express its appreciation
of the extremely cooperative spirit of the Brazilian represent
tative, who personally had no responsibility for the difficult
position that now existed.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) also supported the Chairman's
proposal. It was natural that the contracting parties should
have viewed with concern the repeated delay on the part of the
Brazilian Government to comply with the recommendations. If
the Chairman' s proposal were adopted, there would be no cause
for action by the contracting parties at the next session if GATT/CP. 4/SR. 20
Page 9.
Brazil fulfilled the requirements in the meantime, but failing
that the contracting parties affected would then in any case have
the right to seek for compensation. The proposal by the Chairman
should therefore not call for undue concern by the Brazilian
representative. The cooperative attitude of the Brazilian
representative should however be appreciated by the Contracting
Parties.
Mr. SCHMITT (New Zealand) said that he was not certain that
past discussions had been undertaken specifically under Article
XXIII. It might be appropriate for the question to be
considered at the next session under the provisions of Article
XXIII, but it was not necessary for the Contracting Parties to
invite governments to proceed under those provisions. In his
opinion the most practical way of dealing with the situation
would be to take note of the statement of the Brazilian repre-
sentative, and leave the matter to be pursued by the contracting
parties concerned if they should so desire.
Discussion of the subject was to be continued at the next
meeting and the meeting adjourned at 1.30 p.m. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.