21(1)

Federal Register.

MR. STEWART

In such cases, the period within which

the Tariff Commission must make its report shall be extended

by three months.

"(3) Upon making its report to the President, the
Tariff Commission shall also promptly make it public (with
the exception of information which the Commission determines
to be confidential) and have a summary of it published in the
Federal Register.

"(e) No investigation for the purposes of this section
shall be made with respect to the same subject matter as
involved in a previous investigation under this section
unless one year has elapsed since the Tariff Commission
made its report to the President of the results of such
previous investigation.

"(f) For the purposes of this section, a condition
of market disruption shall be found to exist whenever a
showing has been made that imports of a like or directly
competitive article are substantial, that they are increasing
rapidly both absolutely and as a proportion of total domestic
consumption, and that they are offered at prices either
substantially below those of comparable domestic articles

GOVERNMENT

Also in connection with the import relief criterion,
Mr. Stewart proposes a major amendment to the market dis-
ruption requirements which would enable a finding of market
disruption in cases where imports are offered at prices
"approximately the same as those of comparable domestic
articles which have been depressed to that level due in
whole, or in part, to the pressure of the prices of the
imported article" as an alternative to the trade bill's
requirement that the imported articles be offered at
prices "substantially below those of comparable domestic
articles." We believe that this factor is not appropriate
for a determination of market disruption and could result
in an excessive and unwarranted increase in the number of
cases in which the relationship between increased imports
and the serious injury would be incorrectly initially
assumed.

The market disruption criteria, if met, are to be considered a prima facie showing that imports are the

21(J)

MR. STEWART

or at prices approximately the same as those of comparable
domestic articles which have been depressed to that level
due in whole or part to the pressure of the prices of the
imported article.

"(g) Any investigation by the Tariff Commission under
subsection (b) of Section 301 of the Trade Expansion Act
of 1962 (as in effect before the date of the enactment of
this Act) which is in progress immediately before such date
of enactment shall be continued under this section in the
same manner as if the investigation had been instituted
originally under the provisions of this section. For purposes
of subsection (d) (2), the petition for any investigation to
which the preceding sentence applies shall be treated as
having been filed, or the request or resolution as having
been received, or the motion having been adopted, as the
case may be, on the date of the enactment of this Act.

"(h) If, on the date of the enactment of this Act,

the President had not taken any action with respect to any
report of the Tariff Commission containing an affirmative
determination resulting from an investigation taken by it
pursuant to section 301 (b) of the Trade Expansion Act of

primary cause of injury.

GOVERNMENT

Situations in which imported

and domestic articles are comparably priced can hardly
be considered prima facie evidence that

imports have caused the serious injury. Indeed,
the very term "market disruption" implies a severe
disturbance of the domestic market which would not be
likely to exist unless imports have a price advantage.
Were the domestic industry to show during the course
of the investigation that attempts to meet import
prices have caused serious injury, then the Tariff
Commission could presumably find that import competition
was the primary cause of that injury.

These sections of the Administration bill set forth the options
available to the President following his receipt of a report from the
Tariff Commission containing an affirmative finding that increased imports
have caused serious injury to a domestic industry. The bill in its present
form carries out the policy notions previously discussed in which it is
the apparent intention of the Administration not to make available relief
from injurious imports to a domestic industry in the form of increased
tariffs or the imposition of quotas except in the singular circumstance
in which a sudden surge of imports temporarily prevents an industry from
"adjusting" to the effect of the increased competition.

For the reasons discussed in connection with Section 201 of
this Chapter, this policy concept is unsound. The data presented to the
Committee by the Trade Relations Council demonstrates that import injury
already exists or is significantly threatened to a broad cross section

Another major revision of the proposed Trade Reform
Act suggested in the Stewart paper is to require the Tariff
Commission, after an affirmative finding, to determine
"the extent to which an increase in the tariff, or the
imposition of quotas, or both" is necessary to remedy the
injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports.
The President would be required within 60 days to impose
the relief recommended by the Tariff Commission and direct
the Secretary of Labor to give expeditious consideration
to petitions for adjustment assistance. As under the
proposed trade bill, the President would have discretionary
authority to negotiate orderly marketing agreements with
foreign countries which could replace other import relief
measures. However, the Stewart paper adds that agreements
would have to impose limitations "consistent with the
limitations on imports found by the Tariff Commission to

be appropriate."

MR

STEWART

GOVERNMENT

22(B)