893B.24222/10–2751:Airgram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Consulate General at Calcutta
A–58. ReContel 221 October 271 and other messages Tibetan wool. Your views subject discussions with Treasury. On April 30 Treasury advised Collectors of Customs as follows:
“Tibet is not considered a part of China under the Foreign Assets Control Regulations, including Sec 500.808, except to the extent that it is occupied by Chinese Communist forces. Accordingly, merchandise of Tibetan origin should not be considered to be of Chinese origin under the provisions of Sec 500.808 provided you obtain from the importer (a) a statement signed by him to the effect that he has no cause to believe any of the following:
- (1)
- That the merchandise involved has been in occupied Tibet since date of occupation or December 17, 1950, whichever was later;
- (2)
- That it has been in China proper or in North Korea on or since December 17, 1950;
- (3)
- That a designated national of China or North Korea has had any interest therein on or since December 17, 1950; and
(b) a similar statement signed by the person from whom he purchased the merchandise. In the absence of your being furnished such statements by the importer, merchandise of Tibetan origin should be considered by you to be of Chinese origin and subject to the provisions of Sec 500.808.”
In view of above Treasury does not understand how its Regulations and above procedure are causing non-movement of bona fide non-Commie Tibetan wool exports to US. It is suggested that the Consulate General forward to the Department such specific evidence as may be available, other than the National City Bank complaint, indicating that the above procedure materially affects the movement of non-Communist Tibetan wool.
November 26 the GOI Consul General in New York City phoned the Department of Commerce, stating that GOI would like to obtain that Department’s views on reasons for the non-purchase of Tibetan wool by US importers. It was agreed by State and Commerce that the Consul General should be fully briefed by Commerce, including a description of the current low level of activity in the US wool carpet industry and a summary of complaints from US importers against the high GOI levy on Tibetan wool exports. Since a report from the [Page 1858] Consul General probably will be received by the GOI soon, it is suggested that, at the discretion of the Principal Officer, the attention of appropriate officers of the GOI be invited informally to the apparent reluctance of US importers to purchase Tibetan wool at premium prices, attributable, in part, to the high GOI tax levy, which makes Tibetan wool less competitive in world markets. Any indication of willingness of the GOI to consider a reduction of its tax levy should be reported by telegram.