200% Duty Imposed on Europe Food, Liquor

President Reagan today announced drastic retaliatory measures against some European farm exports in a trade dispute the United States says is costing American farmers about $400 million a year.

The retaliation takes the form of a 200% U.S. duty on European gin, brandy, white wine, assorted varieties of cheese, canned ham, endive, carrots and olives.

The biggest items are the duty on gallon containers or less of white wine costing less than $4 per gallon, on gallon containers or less of brandy costing more than $13 per gallon and on gin in one-gallon containers or less.

U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter said the brandy and wine, mostly from France, would account for $250 million of the $400 million a year, and the gin, from Britain, would amount to $70 million of it.

‘Prices Will Rise’

“Clearly prices will rise,” Yeutter said. He added that he could not say how much, but “it will be significant.”

Duties on most of the products now are only about 15% to 20%.

The higher duties are to go into effect at an unspecified date but not later than Jan. 30. Yeutter said there would probably be further talks with the European Community between now and then but the two sides are far apart.

Yeutter made a brief statement and answered reporters’ questions about a dispute over agricultural trade with the 12-nation European Community and one dealing with Brazilian “informatics” trade and investment.

In both disputes, a Dec. 31 deadline was set for a presidential decision. Reagan delayed sanctions against Brazil pending further study.

Stiff Tariff on Feed Grains

The European dispute arose after the EC was expanded to include Spain and Portugal. The two countries had been major markets for American corn and sorghum, used as livestock feed.

The EC, also known as the Common Market, imposed a high tariff on non-European feed grains, effectively cutting them off at a cost to American farmers which U.S. officials estimated at $400 million to $500 million annually.

U.S. officials conceded that the EC had the right to take this action, but argued that the United States was entitled to compensation under rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.