APPENDIX B Exports of wheat flour from United States to important Latin American and European countries shown for calendar years Figures via Atlantic and Gulf ports not available for 1933. Shipments via Pacific and other ports are not shown. Authority: Reports of U.S. Department of Commerce, Foodstuffs Round the World. Reports of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Corps and Markets. APPENDIX C Cash and closing option prices for wheat at Winnipeg, Chicago, and Kansas City on representative days in first 3 months of 1934 Winnipeg market quotations: Basis in store Fort William and Port Arthur. BRIEF SUBMITTED BY STEVENSON MASSON, CUSTOM HOUSE BROKER, BALTIMORE, MD. I recommend in connection with this bill, the repeal of the Antidumping Act of 1921, and sections 304 and 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It is conceivable that the committee may feel, with regard to the Antidumping Act of 1921 and section 304, that some such act should remain in the law. In that case, I feel that the antidumping act should be rewritten to provide for the determination of a finding of dumping within a more reasonable time than is possible under present statute, and further that the President be given the authority to waive the application of the statute as it would apply on commodities which are the subject of a particular trade agreement. With regard to the section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, this statute, as written, is too rigorous and inflexible and should be rewritten and give some administrative office, such as the Secretary of the Treasury, the power to declare the necessity for marking, with country of origin, and to prescribe appropriate marking. The antidumping act has been used principally in recent years to harass the importer and effect prohibition of importations. A relatively small amount of cases, between 1 and 5 percent, have resulted in the finding of dumping, but pending a finding the importer is either forced to discontinue importing or run the risk of arbitrary assessments years after importation. It is conceivable that this act could disrupt and jeopardize the trade agreement. It is believed that other countries, such as Canada, have a more simple and effective method of treating this dumping problem. Our system permits an unlimited number of years to intervene between institution of investigation and final decision by the Secretary of the Treasury. With regard to section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 it makes mandatory the marking of all imported materials and the container and the shipping package in which it is transported, and provides a penalty of 10 percent of the value, even though the material, its container, and outer package are subsequently marked. In this connection it must be borne in mind that even though goods may be marked, the absence of marking on the outer package and the inner protective wrappings incurs the full penalty. The Secretary of the Treasury is in a better position to determine the material which need be marked and in this connection it is submitted that merchandise which is sold to the consumer without knowledge of origin of material, should be marked, but material that is consumed by the importer as raw material should not be marked. With regard to section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, this is a new provision in our tariff, permitting any producer or manufacturer to file appeal seeking reappraisement of an importer's merchandise (that is questioning the valuation) or protesting the dutiable classification. This section has been used strictly as a means of harrassing the importer and it can be proven that very small percentage have been instituted in good faith and only a very few have resulted in decisions favorable to the complainant. The American producer or manufacturer has protection without this section, as he always has the opportunity of access to the collector or appraiser, who are generally eager to collect the greatest amount of duty and through them the proper relief or institution of a test case can be obtained. It is conceivable that an American manufacturer or association of manufacturers could jeopardize, if not entirely defeat, the trade agreement. I make these suggestions because after careful reading of the bill I do not think that paragraph 2 on page 2 or section 2 on page 3 are sufficiently broad to grant the authority to the President to cope with the situation outlined in the suggestions. I further feel that the bill should be amended to provide the power to change goods from dutiable to free and/or free to dutiable classification. The benefits of such power, in view of the intentions expressed in the bill itself, are so obvious as to need no further expedition. MARCH 16, 1934. STEVENSON MASSON. bas 1 1 RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1934 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Robert L. Doughton (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. When the committee recessed yesterday, Dr. Sayre was on the witness stand and had not concluded his statement. We will continue with Dr. Sayre's statement at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS B. SAYRE-Continued Mr. SAYRE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Ways and Means: Yesterday I was suggesting that the proposed bill, H.R. 8430, is not a drastic departure from the kind of practice which has been followed in this country ever since the early days of the Government. This morning I want to show you at the outset that similarly this practice that is tariff bargaining effectuated by Executive action as provided for in H.R. 8430-is the kind of thing which is going on in Europe today. And I want to indicate, if I may, why it is necessary that the United States should have such bargaining machinery in order to compete successfully with other countries of the world, in Europe and in Latin America. Other speakers have suggested to you the critical diminution of world trade. I need not reemphasize that point. A statement, published by the League information section, expresses the matter succinctly. To quote from that document: The total volume of goods exchanged between countries has diminished by about 30 percent by comparison with 1929. This aspect of the condition of world trade is especially serious. Previous crises never showed such a shrinkage in the volume of trade. On the contrary a fall in prices used to give rise speedily to an increase in the volume of trade which made it possible for the situation to improve. As the President stated in his message to the Congress, week before last, world trade has diminished in volume to about 70 percent of what it was in 1929. In value world trade today is only 35 percent of what it was in 1929. I will not give further statistics or figures, because those matters have already been brought out by previous speakers. But I do want to remind you in this connection that the proportion of the United States trade to world trade has been diminishing even more rapidly than the diminishing world trade; that is the significant thing which concerns us who care about the welfare of the American people, who care about the sale of American goods. 45571-34- -22 333 I have before me, sir, some figures which I shall be glad to put into the record, showing the percentage of world trade accruing to each of the 11 leading countries. If 100 is assigned as the figure for the imports of the world as a whole, then the figure for the United States import trade in 1929 was 12.19. That is, in 1929, United States imports constituted over 12 percent of world imports. In 1930 that figure of 12.19 had shrunk to 10.71. In 1931 it shrank still further, to 10.02. In 1932 it went down still further to 9.58. In other words, the United States, during this great shrinkage of world trade, is getting a diminishing share of that diminishing trade, In exports the shrinkage is still more marked. In exports, in 1929, the United States had 15.61 percent of the world trade. In 1930 that figure of 15.61 shrank to 14.27; in 1931 to 12.57; in 1932 to 12.39. In other words, it shrank from 15 down to 12. Combining imports and exports, the United States' share in the total of international trade fell from 13.83 percent in 1929 to 10.92 percent in 1932. Other countries are getting the amount of that shrinkage. You see, in the table I have before me, some of the other countries are going up in their share of world trade. I will not bother you with reciting further statistics, because I think they are very wearisome. But I would like to put the table in the record. The figures are based on money values and are taken from the League's Review of World Trade, 1932, and the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that may be made part of the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Percentage of world trade accruing to each of the 11 leading countries World. 1 Provisional figures. 35, 606 29, 083 20, 847 13, 885 11, 937 33, 035 26, 492 18, 922 12, 726 11, 119 68, 641 26, 611 23, 056 4,339 3, 114 2,088 1, 330 1, 122 5, 157 3, 781 2, 378 1, 577 1, 149 9, 496 2, 907 2, 270 |