| OCR Text |
Show Sen. Moss Protests Action On Uruguayan Wool Import plex system of variable exchange rates (the amount in dollars that a number of pesos exchange for). The rates are arranged so thta wool top, a partially finished article, is favored over raw wool. The controversy between the Treasury on the one hand and the wool industry on the other, turns on the question of whether this favorable rate constitutes a subsidy. In recent hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, Assistant Secretary Flues said the Treasury's "benchmark," a weighted average of all Uruguay exchange rates which the Department De-partment uses to determine if the exchange advantage allowed wool top is or is not a subsidy. In 1953, the "benchmark" indicated indi-cated it was. Now it indicates it is not, and the Department is removing the subsidy. "The Treasury Department's insistence on removing the countervailing coun-tervailing duty on imports of wool top from Uruguay is an unjustified un-justified sacrifice of American jobs," Sen. Frank E. Moss said this week. "With wool prices at a 17 year low, with lamb prices depressed as a result, and with unemployment unemploy-ment high, it is hard to imagine a worse time for such a move the -Senator said. "It simply means that more wool processed by Uruguay's workers will come into America." Senator Moss noted that in 1952 imports of Uruguayan wool top reached 17 million pounds. After - imposition of the duty they dropped to nothing in 1955. By 1957, the imports were up t to 306,000 pounds, about one- third of all U. S. imports of the item. In a letter to Assistant Secretary Secre-tary of Treasury A. Gilmor Flue, the Utah Democrat challenged validity of the "benchmark," the standard the Treasury uses in determining the existence of a subsidy. . By law, the Treasury department depart-ment must levy a countervailing duty on imported articles on which the exportng country pays a subsidy. Uruguay uses a com- ' ' '. |
