10 Strategic S. African Minerals Exempt From U.S. Import Ban

Ten South African-produced strategic minerals have been ruled exempt from the U.S. import ban under the anti-apartheid sanctions law because they are essential to the U.S. economy or defense, a State Department official said last week.

Another official said five companies have been removed from a list of 144 South African firms that are being boycotted by the United States. The 139 remaining on the list are unable to export to the United States under the law because they are regarded as parastatals --owned, operated or subsidized by the South African government.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the moves were authorized under provisions of the law, which includes bans on the imports of South African gold coins as well as prohibitions on exports to South Africa of computers and other products and technology. The sanctions law was passed by Congress last fall over President Reagan’s veto.

Needed for Economy, Defense

John C. Whitehead, deputy secretary of state, determined that quantities of the minerals are “essential for the economy or defense of the United States” and are unavailable from reliable or secure suppliers, one official said.

Among the minerals that can be imported are andalusite; antimony; chrysotile asbestos; chromium, including ferrochromium; cobalt; natural industrial diamonds; manganese, including ferromanganese and ferrosilicomanganese; platinum group metals; rutile, including titanium-bearing slag, and vanadium.

The five companies were the first to be removed from a list of 144 companies at first believed by the State Department to be parastatals. That list went into effect Nov. 19.

Exempt Companies Named

Those removed include Klein Karoo Landbooukooperasie, which exports ostrich feathers to the United States for use in dusters, and four computer firms that are subsidiaries of foreign companies--Siemens, Comtec, Tecnetics and Mercedes Datakor (Mercedes).

The State Department official said the list was drawn up hurriedly to meet the requirements of the law, and in some cases there was insufficient information to make a correct determination of the company’s ties to the South African government.