“UNFAIR JAPANESE PRACTICES STOP TRADE LIBERALISATION”

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29273, 3 August 1960, Page 18

“UNFAIR JAPANESE PRACTICES STOP TRADE LIBERALISATION”

(N.Z. Prttt Association—Cop»rinM)

(Rec. 8 pjn.) LONDON, August 1. Japan’s unfair trading practices in the world wool textile markets remained one of the biggest obstacles to a general liberalisation of trade, towards which the West was gradually working, and any move to reduce tariff barriers must inevitably take into account the possibility of increased imports of cheap Japanese goods, says the ‘‘Yorkshire Post,” commenting editorially on official complaints made by wool and textile organisations in Britain. By her deceptive trade methods, added the “Yorkshire Post." Japan was impeding the whole movement towards greater freedom in international trade. “The popular conception is that Japan’s powerful competition arises from cheap labour costs. But this is only part of the picture. Her price undercutting in world markets is facilitated chiefly by practices which openly flout international codes of fair trading.

“Her low export prices for wool cloth, achieved by hidden subsidies, were largely responsible for causing the United States to impose a tariff quota on similar goods from all countries, thereby penalising the innocent as well as the guilty," it said. “There is no sign of a change of heart in Japanese industry and the Japanese Government appears to connive at these practices. The issue assumes new significance on recurring requests by Japan that she should be given most favoured nation status by member countries of G.A.T.T. and that the restrictions now imposed on

Japanese good* under article M should be removed. "Wool textile and other trading communities. however. feel strongly that Japan should not be admitted to any equal trading relationship with other countries until she discontinues her unfair trading methods. Meanwhile, it is considered that other countries should deal with this unfair competition. not by general Increases in tariffs, under which all countries suffer, but by anti-dumping duties against the goods of the offending country.”