FOREIGN RELATIONSY 19 5 0, VOLUME ]


quotas for imports of different commodities. With the exception of
the United Kingdom none of the countries which have intensified
restrictions do so, and Australia, New Zeal-and and possibly Ceylon
do not even publish lists of commodities which are "licensable".
  Should it develop that ad hoc licensing as distinct from the use of
quotas is the only practicable procedure in any particular case, the
Delegation may still wish to request additional relevant information
concerning the administration of the restrictions, import licenses
granted over a recent period and the distribution of such licenses
among supplying countries ,as contemplated in Article XIII 3(a).
Reference may also be made in this connection to Article X-1, which
requires the publication, -among other things, of regulations pertain-
ing to restrictions or prohibitions on imports.
  Complaints of the kind outlined 'above are likely to go far beyond
the intensification 'as ,such and apply to the general 'application of
import restrictions by the countries concerned. Hence, the Delegation
m'ay also take these matters up, if !appropriate, in connection with
the general review of import restrictions under Article XIV-1(g).
Criteria in GATT Applicable to Discriminatory Import Restrictions
    for Balance-of-Payments Reasons
  GATT contains two alternative bases of discrimination for balance-
of-payments reasons, one under paragraphs 1(b) 'and (c) of Article
XIV (the so-called "Havana" option) and the other under Annex J
(the "Geneva" option).t The recent intensification of restrictions
on
dollar imports may be examined for conformity to these standards,
though bearing in mind our acceptance of the general proposition
that increased restriction of dollar imports was necessary and attempt-
ing to cite only cases of unauthorized discrimination.
  Even in this relatively narrow framework, it will be necessary to
avoid being placed in the position of having to indicate what alter-
native restrictions we would prefer to those to which we may take
exception. This Government might be involved in difficulties with
various United States domestic interests if it secured the removal of
an unauthorized discrimination but, in the process of doing so, in-
4dicated that another restriction, affecting adversely some other Aimeri-
can industry, was preferable.
   A further general consideration is the situation resulting from the
fact that the United Kingdom is bound by Section 9 of the Anglo-
American Financial Agreement to administer import restrictions "on

  L Of the countries here considered, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand
  and Burma, come under the Havana option, and the United Kingdom, Ceylon,
  Southern Rhodesia under the Geneva option. [Footnote in the source text.
  Regarding Annex J, see footnote 1, p. 727.]


738