611.653/83: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Italy (Phillips)
76. Embassy’s 195, August 8, 10 a.m. The Department perceives no objection to addressing a note to the Foreign Office in the sense suggested and enclosing therewith a copy of the Treasury’s letter dated July 21, 1938,23a with the exception of the first paragraph and the last sentence of the final paragraph which should not be communicated to the Italian authorities.
In reply to the communication from the Italian Foreign Office citing specific cases which was transmitted with the Embassy’s telegram No. 177, July 16, 11 a.m. the Treasury in a letter dated August 2, 1938 states in part that
“The advice received by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the customs authorities at New York had ‘assessed an anti-dumping surtax upon cotton bed covers and carpets which had been shipped and requested payment of the invoices as a guaranty, in addition to the duty, pending the completion of an investigation which had been ordered under the imputation that the invoiced prices were too low’ appears to be based upon some misunderstanding of the facts. No finding of dumping has been made against cotton bed covers and carpets from Italy and there is no authority at the present time for the assessment of special duties on such merchandise.
“Official reports indicate a probability that cotton and other goods are being exported from Italy to the United States at prices below those contemplated by the Anti-dumping Act, 1921 (U. S. Code, title 19, secs. 160–173) and importations of such goods are therefore, being released under special bonds to secure the payment of additional duties in the event that the shipments are hereafter determined to be subject to the anti-dumping law. Our customs authorities are also investigating indications that exports to the United States from Italy receive the benefits, bounties, or grants within the purview of our countervailing duty law (U. S. Code, title 19, sec. 1303).”
You may wish to use the information contained in the Treasury’s letter of August 2 in case you contemplate a separate answer to the specific cases cited by the Foreign Office.