Слике страница
PDF
ePub

and implies that that quantity was only about one-half what the fig industry indicated were to come in. I think this is an entirely unfair implication of a misstatement of facts by the fig industry and is wholly unsubstantiated by the facts available to me. The facts show that the fig industry indicated that imports for the entire crop year would probably reach 6,000 tons and actually to date, imports of figs-in the form of whole dried figs and in the form of dried fig paste-have totaled 7,992 tons, of which 2,154 tons have been rejected by the Food and Drug Administration as unfit for human consumption.

The Secretary further states that American shipments or gs to date in the current crop year have exceeded those of the last crop year. He fails to state, however, that the relatively small shipments of last crop year were from a crop that was one-fifth below normal and that even with such a short crop that American figs backed up in the hands of packers had a substantially excessive inventory on hand at the end of the crop year, July 1, 1951, which was caused primarily by excessive imports.

The Secretary also fails to state the very significant fact that the shipments this crop year have been made at a very substantial financial loss to the fig packers and that figs have been selling for some time at less than the packers paid the growers therefor. I am informed that the Tariff Commission has information to prove that the American fig packers have lost almost $800,000 this crop year on a crop of figs worth approximately $5,500,000. That is a loss in excess of 10 percent of the entire value of the crop to the farmers. Certainly, it is unfair to imply that because the fig packers have shipped a small quantity of figs this year, at a loss, in excess of their shipments last year from a short crop indicates that no relief is justified. The Secretary, in his letter, then reaches the conclusion that during the remainder of the 1951-52 season, that domestic demand would have to be satisfied almost wholly from domestic sources until the new shipping season starts. This is wholly inconsistent with the fact that during the month of March and to April 25, 723 tons of foreign figs have entered the United States to satisfy domestic demand, while an equal amount of excessive carryover in the hands of American packers remains in warehouses in California. In the Secretary's letter, he apparently assumes that the request for emergency treatment was made only in order to restrict imports during the balance of the current crop year. This assumption is incorrect, but even so, the necessity for emergency treatment would still be present. If relief is justified and is to be granted in the form of a quota for the coming 1952-53 crop year which begins July 1, 1952, every day of delay reduces the effectiveness of such relief in the desired effect of raising grower prices to or near parity. In my opinion, the Secretary fails to recognize the psychological effect that would result from an early announcement of relief. If a limitation of imports for the coming crop

year were announced immediately or had been announced 30 days from the time the application was filed with the Secretary, an immediate firming of American prices would have had a much greater beneficial effect on grower prices than would an announcement of an import limitation on July 1, August 1, or September 1. A late announcement of an import limitation would help the packers much more than it would help the growers whose prices may have already been determined and who are currently finding great difficulty or inability to obtain bank credit for working capital.

In my opinion, the Secretary has not properly interpreted section 8 (a). That section was intended by Congress as an instrument which would enable him to anticipate difficulties and take corrective action well before those difficulties materialized. In my opinion, the following colloquy between Senator Holland, the author of section 8 (a), and Senator George, the manager of the trade-agreements bill on the floor of the Senate, clearly indicates the unmistakable intention that section 8 (a) be used as a preventive measure, well in advance of any adverse occurrence, rather than a corrective measure after the injury has occurred-Congressional Record, May 23, 1951, page 5806:

"Mr. HOLLAND. In connection with this question, I also submit my fourth question, as follows: In using in the report the following language, "The planting, offering for sale, or shipment of large quantities of perishable products within or without the country may create conditions which may require emergency action,' is it the intent that, when the Secretary of Agriculture reports in advance of planting and/or harvesting that such conditions exist, or threaten to exist, the President shall be authorized to take emergency action which will prevent the existence of these conditions rather than being compelled to wait until they actually occur?

"Mr. GEORGE. Section 8 (a) is designed to offer relief, on the speediest basis possible, in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Agricultural Ad

justment Act and the provisions of the escape clause in section 7 of the bill. Under both these provisions it is not necessary to delay remedial action until the injury has actually occurred.

"Mr. HOLLAND. I particularly appreciate that answer because it makes clear for the record that neither the Secretary of Agriculture nor the President of the United States must needs wait until the actual excess amount of production is in hand, but that they are required to and may exercise reasonable foresight and caution to determine, ahead of the actual existence of the excess product, the fact that there will be such an excess or that such an excess is seriously threatened."

I hope that under the circumstances the Secretary of Agriculture will reconsider his decision and determine that emergency relief under section 8 (a) is necessary for the relief of the dried-fig industry.

It is unfortunate, indeed, that the critical problem currently facing the American fig industry should get mixed up in a debate between the Secretary and Mr. Breckinridge. I most certainly hope it is not the Secretary's intention to divert attention from that problem by attacking the integrity and veracity of an individual spokesman for the industry. I have become involved because I am interested in helping the California fig industry as well as all California specialty crops. Any interest which I may have in Mr. Breckinridge is incidental to that primary interest and springs from the fact that he has represented the fig growers and also the producers of numerous California specialty crops in their efforts to obtain protection against unfair competition from foreign countries. In my opinion, as in the opinion of other Members of the California delegation, Mr. Breckinridge is to be commended for his vigorous approach and his courage of conviction in striving to correct a situation existing in the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations as well as elsewhere in the Government which is detrimental to the interests of a great many of the farmers of America.

Senator JOHNSON. Does anyone else here desire to testify? If not, the hearing is recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconveneat 10 a. m. Tuesday, April 29, 1952.)

CUSTOMS SIMPLIFICATION ACT

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1952

UNITED STATES SENATE,
CCMMITTEE ON FINANCE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 312, Senate Office Building, Senator Walter F. George (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators George, Kerr, and Flanders.

Also present: Elizabeth B. Springer, chief clerk; and Serge N. Benson, professional staff member.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Moss, you may come around.

Senator O'Mahoney is scheduled first, but he is not here, so we will just go right ahead.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Other members of the committee may get in. You may identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF HARRY A. MOSS, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN KNIT HANDWEAR ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. Moss. My name is Harry A. Moss, Jr. I am secretary of the American Knit Handwear Association, Gloversville, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated.

Mr. Moss. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. You are appearing for whom?

Mr. Moss. American Knit Handwear Association.
The CHAIRMAN. Handwear Association?

Mr. Moss. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. What is that association?

Mr. Moss. This association, Senator, represents the United States manufacturers of seamless knit gloves and mittens, and we are pleased to go on record in favor of simplification of customs administrative laws. We do not think it is fair to impose unnecessary burdens on importers by maintaining administrative provisions which hamper trade.

At the same time, we do assert the need for continuation of a protective tariff system in this country for many industries such as ours. We believe that Congress should be critical of any moves which would undermine the protective tariff system which has been established by Congress. Any move which might weaken our tariff in the name of customs simplification should be scrutinized.

247

Some sections of the bill need comment. However, the shortness of the hearings notice and the preoccupation of our industry in supplying gloves for the military compel us to limit our preparation and comment. Furthermore, we note that the more controversial points have been already analyzed by prior witnesses. Therefore, we wish to touch upon the following points:

Section 2. Antidumping and countervailing duties: We see no valid reason why section 303 of the 1930 Tariff Act should be amended so that the procedures leading to imposition of a countervailing duty will be broadly the same as those required in the Antidumping Act of 1921.

Section 3 would require that the Secretary of the Treasury not only find, as is now required, that an imported article enjoys the benefit of a foreign export subsidy, but that, in addition, it be determined that an American industry is being, or is likely to be, injured or is prevented or retarded from being established.

What justification is advanced for thus weakening the countervailing duty procedures? We wonder why some American industry, like ours, should be subjected to providing proof of injury, in addition to proof of foreign government subsidy? We contend that the test of injury is an added burden in protecting American industry and should be deleted. It is to the advantage of industries such as ours that the present countervailing duty provisions be maintained.

Section 3. Special marking provisions: We favor elimination of unnecessary marking restrictions. We trust it will be clear from the committee's report that such simplification of administration will in no way endorse leniency in the basic enforcement of the marking requirements set forth in section 304 of the 1930 Tariff Act. We strongly urge strengthening of the provisions to prevent unfair competition. Section 11. Administrative exemptions: The exemption of $10 shipments from tariff duties, as proposed herein, is important. It cannot be too emphatically objected to. We will predict that should this section remain as written, many industries will be so injured by mailorder import competition that Congress will be swamped with legitimate complaints. The result may be an overwhelming demand for a quota or other severe measure to afford summary relief. It takes little imagination to foresee the number of items selling at less than $10 per unit, foreign value, which can be sold in this country through a mail-order catalog, to realize the flood of import competition which this exemption could let loose, and I do not believe there is any more. that need to be said on the subject.

Section 13. Value: It is proposed that section 402 of the 1930 Tariff Act be amended, first of all by eliminating foreign value. We understand, from prior testimony of the Treasury Department, that foreign value is difficult to ascertain and that export value, the present alternative, is predominantly used in assessing foreign merchandise. Much as we would prefer retention of foreign value, if it is impractical of ascertainment, we concede its deletion.

Note, however, that the dropping of foreign value herein should not in any way be construed to detract from retention of the Antidumping Act of 1921 in its present form.

In this connection, we suggest that in the fostering of simplification, the U. S. Tariff Commission be empowered by Congress to make the investigations and recommendations required under the Anti

dumping Act and the countervailing duty provisions of the Tariff Act, in line with the purpose for which the powers of the Tariff Commission have been broadened since 1922.

As for comparative value, we are at a loss to discover why it has been introduced in this bill as an alternative basis of valuation, and we plead that it be stricken from the proposed act. It is so loosely defined that it is potentially a loophole for assessment of lower tariff rates in addition to being unnecessary.

Section 20 on conversion of currency seems to have been introduced with no tangible foundation in simplification of customs procedure, and we recommend that it be deleted from the proposed act.

That completes the statement of our industry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You have introduced your entire statement into the record?

Mr. Moss. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Moss. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Casey?
identify yourself for the record, please, sir.

Mr. Casey, you may be seated, and

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. CASEY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LEATHER GLOVE MANUFACTURERS

Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is James H. Casey, and I am executive secretary of the National Association of Leather Glove Manufacturers.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Casey, we will be glad to hear you. If you have a written statement you wish to present, you may do so. Mr. CASEY. No; I have not, Senator.

I will be very brief in what I have to say.

There are two things in this bill that we wish to emphasize, which should be given some consideration by the committee here. One is the problem we have had with France on the importation of leather gloves.

Back in November 1951, through a multiple-exchange rate, they were allowing the importers of French gloves 480 francs to the dollar. To a few importers where there was a transaction between heavy machinery industries and the importers of French gloves, that is what they were allowing, and we called the attention of that manipulation to the Tariff Commission and to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs and also to the attention of Senator Lehman. Senator Ives, and Congressman Kearney of our congressional district from up-State New York, to follow through in this matter, because it was becoming very serious; and up until this time we have had several letters from the various Senators and Congressmen involved in that case, and have had no satisfaction. In other words, it is one of those cases that has been a situation where the Customs have taken no initiative or Tariff has taken no initiative to go forward with this whole thing, and we are quite concerned now with the countervailing duties, as they are outlined in this particular bill, and the same way of imposing these duties where there is definite showing of a subsidy being made by one country or another.

Now, it has been our opinion in this whole case that a year ago, after the Torquay Conference, they did adjust the tariff rate on gloves

« ПретходнаНастави »