DUMPING OF FLOUR.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 689, 14 December 1909, Page 7

DUMPING OF FLOUR.

A SWISS -WARNING TO GEEMANT. (3y Tc!cßrabh-Fre«s Geneva, Docomber 12. ■The Swiss Government has diupatched n sharp protest to in connection with the dumping of flour, and threatens retaliation^ . Sidelight on the FUca) Problem. ■' Tho flour-dumping trouble between Switzerland and Germany is due.to the millers■'of the latter country systematically "dumping" into Switzerland the finest quality of.flour at prices which, the Swiss contend, is rendered possible only by the grant of disguised ■ export subsidies by the'Gorman. Government. "Swiss millers," Bays the Berne correspondent of "The Timos, ,, "are convinced that the' German export regulations amount to nothing less than a , premium which render - the Swiss import duty illusory." Hβ adds:— . "It is contended' here (in Berne) that if thero were any truth in the. Swiss accusation similar complaints would be made ■in England, whither German flour is also sent. It may be pointed put, however, that England u'ndor her Free-trade system 13 accustomed to suoh 'dumping,' and is V slow to resent it, as was , proved by ; the length of tinie it took to organise an effective 1 protest against the sugar bounties. ■ The imm'ediatu cause of the Swiss complaints, which w.ere, officially expressed noarly two .years ago, hns boen the. threatened destruction of the important Swiss milling industry! by an. importation of German flour exceeding that to any other country., English millers, lite other British manufacturers, have long, had- to habituate, th'emselyos to foreign competition, enjoying many unfair advantages, so that the mere absence-of strong protests from that, quarter is no proof; that, England has not;also to 6oroo oxtent suffered, frpin. the iniviiner in .which the. German Customs, regulations are made to promote Gdrman. competition.' :. , ':■■■'■:..'. \ . ■ '. ' ■'■■• . "The present conflict,unquestionably deserves attention in England Dsproniising an bbjeptlesson in the value of countervailing duties, or, indeed, of the mere threat of their imposiHod, as a tariff-weapon;. The Germans ;th6iit7 selves acknowledge that the,.main point jit {ssup-ts'-the question of the existence, of a disgjused bounty, Tliu settleme!it..of that question, by a Court of arbitration to which the whole difference I would be submitted would tie? cidedly' bo of interest, to. more than tho two Governments cqneonied.' ; Tt.has been admitted in German official circles that a German miller may- sometimes Also a, lower - proportion of wheat for , his flour t l ian that which is shown in .the official estimate arid thus gain a slight ndvantage.- The ; Swiss contention is that this advahtagp js constant and: considerable. Why, therefore, not submit tho \ question' to; the decision of impartial experts? ;' '■ , . "If may be well to explain that certificates bi : import 'are : granted by •; the . German Cu'stpnishouses for imported wheat, the duty ibeing reimbursed on as much of it as is ro-expqrted in the form of flour, The proportion of iiupbrted ivheat' to exported .flour' is\declared;by the Swiss to be excessivei Their contention would : to bo supported, by' the fact that' there -is said to be ; an active trade in these certificates of import, thus proving their real valuo to be greater than tho nominal value.". ' ■ '..