United States International Trade Commission

63RD REPORT

USITC Publication 4336

July 2012

THE YEAR IN 

TRADE 2011

Operation of the Trade 

Agreements Program
Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission

Acting Director, Office of Economics

Hugh M. Arce

Director, Office of Operations

Robert B. Koopman

COMMISSIONERS

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4336 July 2012

The Year in Trade 2011

Operation of the Trade Agreements Program

63rd Report
This report was principally prepared by the Office of Economics 

Project Leader 

Joanne Guth 

Deputy Project Leader

Edward C. Wilson 

Office of Economics 

Michele Breaux, Yasnanhia Cabral, Dylan Carlson, 

Justino De La Cruz, William Greene, Lin Jones, 

Walker Pollard, James Stamps, and Samantha Warrington 

Office of the General Counsel

William W. Gearhart 

Office of Industries

Katherine Linton, Laura Rodriguez, and George Sereletis 

Office of Investigations

Catherine DeFilippo and Steven Hudgens 

Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements

Naomi Freeman and Daniel Shepherdson 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations

Anne Goalwin 

Content Reviewer

Karl Tsuji 

Office of Information Technology Systems

Barbara V. Bobbitt 

Office of Economics Interns

Caitlyn Carrico, Darren Sheets, and Alex Taliadoros 

Special Assistance 

Peg Hausman and Cynthia Payne 

Office of Publishing 

Under the direction of 

Arona Butcher, Chief

Country and Regional Analysis Division 
iii 

PREFACE

This report is the 63rd in a series of annual reports submitted to the U.S. Congress under 

section 163(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2213(c)) and its predecessor 

legislation. Section 163(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 states that “the International Trade 

Commission shall submit to the Congress at least once a year, a factual report on the 

operation of the trade agreements program.” 

This report is one of the principal means by which the U.S. International Trade 

Commission provides Congress with factual information on trade policy and its 

administration for calendar year 2011. The trade agreements program includes “all 

activities consisting of, or related to, the administration of international agreements which 

primarily concern trade and which are concluded pursuant to the authority vested in the 

President by the Constitution” and congressional legislation. 

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Preface ............................................................................................................................................... iii 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................... xiii 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... xvii

Chapter 1. Overview of U.S. Trade ................................................................................................ 1-1 

Scope and approach of the report ................................................................................................ 1-1 

Overview of the U.S. economy in 2011 ...................................................................................... 1-1

Exchange rate trends ............................................................................................................. 1-3 

Balance of payments ............................................................................................................. 1-3 

U.S. trade in goods in 2011 ........................................................................................................ 1-5 

U.S. merchandise trade by product category ....................................................................... 1-6 

Exports ............................................................................................................................ 1-6 

Imports ............................................................................................................................. 1-6 

 U.S. imports under preferential trade programs and free trade agreements .......................... 1-7 

U.S. merchandise trade with leading partners ....................................................................... 1-7 

U.S. trade in services in 2011 ...................................................................................................... 1-9 

U.S. services trade by product category ................................................................................ 1-10 

Exports ............................................................................................................................. 1-10 

Imports ............................................................................................................................. 1-11 

U.S. services trade with leading partners .............................................................................. 1-11 

Chapter 2. Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations ................................................ 2-1 

Import relief laws ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 

Safeguard actions .................................................................................................................. 2-1 

Laws against unfair trade practices ............................................................................................. 2-2 

Section 301 investigations .................................................................................................... 2-2 

Section 301 cases in 2011 ................................................................................................ 2-2

Special 301 ....................................................................................................................... 2-4 

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and reviews ....................................... 2-7 

Antidumping duty investigations ..................................................................................... 2-7 

Countervailing duty investigations .................................................................................. 2-8 

Reviews of outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders/suspension

 agreements................................................................................................................... 2-9 

Section 337 investigations .................................................................................................... 2-10 

Trade adjustment assistance ........................................................................................................ 2-11 

Assistance for workers .......................................................................................................... 2-12 

Assistance for farmers ........................................................................................................... 2-12 

Assistance for firms .............................................................................................................. 2-14 

Assistance for communities ................................................................................................. 2-14

Tariff preference programs .......................................................................................................... 2-15 

Generalized System of Preferences ....................................................................................... 2-15
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Chapter 2. Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations—Continued

African Growth and Opportunity Act ................................................................................... 2-17 

Andean Trade Preference Act ............................................................................................... 2-19

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act ............................................................................ 2-21 

Haiti initiatives ................................................................................................................. 2-22 

Chapter 3. Selected Trade Developments in the WTO, OECD, APEC, and ACTA .................. 3-1 

World Trade Organization ........................................................................................................... 3-1 

Doha trade negotiations ........................................................................................................ 3-1 

Special session of the committee on agriculture .............................................................. 3-2 

Negotiating group on market access ............................................................................... 3-2 

Special session of the council for trade in services ......................................................... 3-3 

Negotiating group on rules ............................................................................................... 3-3

Special session of the council for TRIPS ......................................................................... 3-4 

Special session of the committee on trade and environment ........................................... 3-4 

Special session of the committee on trade and development ........................................... 3-5 

Negotiating group on trade facilitation ............................................................................ 3-6 

Special session of the dispute settlement body ................................................................ 3-7 

Director-general consultations ......................................................................................... 3-7 

General Council ................................................................................................................... 3-8 

Ministerial conference ...................................................................................................... 3-8

Work programs, decisions, and reviews .......................................................................... 3-9 

Accessions ........................................................................................................................ 3-10 

 Selected plurilateral agreements ........................................................................................... 3-12 

Agreement on Government Procurement ......................................................................... 3-12 

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aviation............................................................................. 3-14 

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products .......................... 3-14 

Dispute Settlement Body ...................................................................................................... 3-15 

New requests for consultations and new panels established ............................................ 3-17 

 Panel and Appellate Body reports issued and/or adopted during 2011 that involve the

 United States................................................................................................................... 3-19 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ..................................................... 3-31 

OECD Council at ministerial level ....................................................................................... 3-31

Trade Committee .................................................................................................................. 3-32 

Export Credit Arrangement and Aircraft Sector Understanding ........................................... 3-33 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ........................................................................................... 3-33

The Bogor goals, FTAAP, and related APEC commitments ................................................ 3-34 

Regional economic integration and regulatory cooperation ................................................. 3-34 

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ................................................................................. 3-35

Chapter 4. U.S. Free Trade Agreements ........................................................................................ 4-1 

FTAs in force during 2011 .......................................................................................................... 4-1 

FTA developments during 2011 .................................................................................................. 4-3 

 U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement ........................................................................... 4-5

U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement........................................................................ 4-8

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement ....................................................................................... 4-9 
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Chapter 4. U.S. Free Trade Agreements—Continued

 Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement ................................................................................... 4-11 

North American Free Trade Agreement ...................................................................................... 4-14

Free Trade Commission ........................................................................................................ 4-14 

Commission for Labor Cooperation ..................................................................................... 4-16 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation ....................................................................... 4-16 

Dispute settlement ................................................................................................................. 4-17 

Chapter 11 dispute settlement developments ................................................................... 4-19 

Chapter 19 dispute panel reviews .................................................................................... 4-19 

Chapter 5. U.S. Relations with Major Trading Partners ............................................................ 5-1 

European Union .......................................................................................................................... 5-1 

Transatlantic Economic Council .......................................................................................... 5-2

Canada ........................................................................................................................................ 5-4 

 Softwood lumber .................................................................................................................. 5-6 

 SLA arbitration .............................................................................................................. 5-6 

 Intellectual property .............................................................................................................. 5-7 

Government procurement .................................................................................................... 5-8

China .......................................................................................................................................... 5-8 

Intellectual property rights enforcement .............................................................................. 5-10 

Industrial policies .................................................................................................................. 5-11 

Export restraints on raw material inputs ............................................................................... 5-12 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................................ 5-12 

Global trade imbalances and China’s exchange-rate regime ............................................... 5-13 

Mexico ........................................................................................................................................ 5-13 

Cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico ............................................ 5-14 

Japan ........................................................................................................................................... 5-16 

Economic harmonization initiative ...................................................................................... 5-17

Multilateral negotiations and cooperation ............................................................................ 5-18 

Beef ....................................................................................................................................... 5-18 

Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster .................................................................................. 5-19 

Republic of Korea ...................................................................................................................... 5-19 

U.S.-Korea FTA ................................................................................................................... 5-20 

 Background ..................................................................................................................... 5-20 

Beef ....................................................................................................................................... 5-21 

 Background ..................................................................................................................... 5-21 

Brazil .......................................................................................................................................... 5-22 

 Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation .................................................................. 5-23 

Taiwan ........................................................................................................................................ 5-24 

Beef ...................................................................................................................................... 5-25 

India ............................................................................................................................................ 5-26 

Trade and investment dialogue ............................................................................................. 5-27

Agriculture and food trade and investment policy ................................................................ 5-28 

 Cereal grains ................................................................................................................... 5-28 

 FDI in food retail ............................................................................................................. 5-29 

Intellectual property rights ................................................................................................... 5-29 
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Chapter 5. U.S. Relations with Major Trading Partners—Continued

 Russia .......................................................................................................................................... 5-29 

WTO accession ..................................................................................................................... 5-30 

 Agricultural import quotas .................................................................................................... 5-30 

 Intellectual property .............................................................................................................. 5-31 

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... Biblio-1 

Boxes

3.1 Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedures ............................................................ 3-16 

Figures

ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1993–2011 ............................................................ xvii 

1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, annual rate of change, 2002–11 ........................................ 1-2 

1.2 Indices of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 2011 ...... 1-4 

1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2009–11 .................................................................. 1-6 

1.4 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2011 .................................................... 1-8 

1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2011 .................................................... 1-9 

1.6 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2009–11 ......................................... 1-10 

1.7 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2011 ......................................... 1-12 

1.8 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2011 .......................................... 1-13 

5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2007–11 ....................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2007–11 .................................................................. 5-1 

5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2007–11 ...................................................................... 5-5 

5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2007–11 ................................................................. 5-5 

5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2007–11 ........................................................................ 5-9 

5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2007–11 ................................................................... 5-9 

5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2007–11 ...................................................................... 5-14 

5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2007–11 ................................................................. 5-14 

5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2007–11 ......................................................................... 5-16 

5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2007–11 .................................................................... 5-16

5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2007–11 ........................................................................ 5-19 

5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2007–11 ................................................................... 5-19 

5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2007–11 ........................................................................ 5-22

5.14 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2007–11 ................................................................... 5-22

5.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2007–11 ...................................................................... 5-24 

5.16 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2007–11 ................................................................. 5-24 

5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2007–11 .......................................................................... 5-26

5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2007–11 ..................................................................... 5-26

5.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, 2007–11 ....................................................................... 5-30 
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Tables

ES.1 Summary of 2011 trade agreement activities ......................................................................... xxvii

1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2011, 

billions of dollars ................................................................................................................. 1-8 

1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2011, 

billions of dollars ................................................................................................................. 1-12 

2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2011 ................................................ 2-8

2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2011 .............................................. 2-9 

2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries, 2009–11 .......................................... 2-18 

2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA countries, 2009–11 ............................................ 2-18 

2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2009–11 ............................................. 2-21 

2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2009–11 .......................................... 2-23 

2.7 U.S. imports for consumption of apparel from Haiti, 2009–11 .............................................. 2-24 

3.1 WTO membership in 2011 ..................................................................................................... 3-11 

3.2 WTO observers in 2011 .......................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2011 ....................................................... 3-18 

3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports circulated or adopted 

 in 2011 in which the United States was a party .................................................................. 3-20 

4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2009–11 .................................. 4-2 

4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2009–11 ................................ 4-4 

4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2011 ........................................................................ 4-6 

4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with TPP partners, 2009–11 ............................................................. 4-15 

4.5 Active files as of yearend 2011 under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement 

 on Environmental Cooperation ........................................................................................... 4-18

4.6 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of the end of 2011 ......................... 4-20 

5.1 Russian tariff-rate quota quantities for meat and poultry, 2007–11 ....................................... 5-32 

Appendix tables 

A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ..................... A-3 

A.2 Leading U.S. exports to the world, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ............................. A-4 

A.3 Leading U.S. imports from the world, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ................................... A-5 

A.4 U.S. private services trade with the world, by category, 2009–11 ......................................... A-6 

A.5 Antidumping cases active in 2011, by USITC investigation number .................................... A-7 

A.6 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011 .... A-8 

A.7 Countervailing duty cases active in 2011, by USITC investigation number .......................... A-14 

A.8 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2011 .............................................. A-15 

A.9 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders completed 

 in 2011, by date of completion .......................................................................................... A-17

A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International 

Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on December 31, 2011 ..................... A-19 

A.11 Outstanding section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2011 ..................................... A-29 

A.12 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by leading GSP beneficiary, 2009–11 .......... A-33 

A.13 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ........... A-34 
x

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Appendix tables—Continued

A.14 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under the GSP, by HTS 

 provision, 2009–11 ............................................................................................................ A-35 

A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA, by source, 2009–11 ......................................... A-36 

A.16 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under AGOA, by HTS 

provision, 2009–11 ............................................................................................................ A-37 

A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by source, 2009–11 .......................................... A-38 

A.18 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under ATPA, by HTS 

provision, 2009–11 ............................................................................................................ A-39 

A.19 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by source, 2009–11 ....................................... A-40 

A.20 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under CBERA, by HTS 

provision, 2009–11 ............................................................................................................ A-41 

A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments 

in 2011 ............................................................................................................................... A-42 

A.22 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations 

 of USITC and USDOC, developments in 2011 ................................................................. A-49 

A.23 U.S. trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2011 ................................................. A-51 

A.24 Top 15 U.S. single-country export markets and import sources, 2011 .................................. A-52 

A.25 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 .... A-53 

A.26 Leading U.S. exports to the European Union, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ............ A-54 

A.27 Leading U.S. imports from the European Union, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 .................. A-55 

A.28 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ......................... A-56 

A.29 Leading U.S. exports to Canada, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ................................. A-57 

A.30 Leading U.S. imports from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ...................................... A-58 

A.31 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ........................... A-59 

A.32 Leading U.S. exports to China, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ................................... A-60 

A.33 Leading U.S. imports from China, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ......................................... A-61 

A.34 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ........................ A-62 

A.35 Leading U.S. exports to Mexico, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ................................ A-63 

A.36 Leading U.S. imports from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ...................................... A-64 

A.37 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11............................ A-65 

A.38 Leading U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ................................... A-66 

A.39 Leading U.S. imports from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ......................................... A-67 

A.40 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ........................... A-68 

A.41 Leading U.S. exports to Korea, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ................................... A-69 

A.42 Leading U.S. imports from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ......................................... A-70 

A.43 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ........................... A-71 

A.44 Leading U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ................................... A-72 

A.45 Leading U.S. imports from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ......................................... A-73 

A.46 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ......................... A-74 

A.47 Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 ................................. A-75 

A.48 Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ...................................... A-76 

A.49 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 ............................ A-77 

A.50 Leading U.S. exports to India, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 .................................... A-78 

A.51 Leading U.S. imports from India, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 .......................................... A-79 

A.52 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 .......................... A-80 
xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

 Page

Appendix tables—Continued

A.53 Leading U.S. exports to Russia, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 .................................. A-81 

A.54 Leading U.S. imports from Russia, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 ........................................ A-82 

xiii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AB Appellate Body (WTO) 

ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act 

AIT American Institute in Taiwan 

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

ASU Aircraft Sector Understanding (OECD) 

ATPA Andean Trade Preference Act 

ATPDEA Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDOC) 

BECC Border Environment Cooperation Commission (NAFTA) 

BOP balance of payments 

BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

C-4 “Cotton 4” countries (WTO) 

CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (UN) 

CBERA Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

CBI Caribbean Basin Initiative 

CBTPA Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act 

CCCT Community College and Career Training (TAA) 

CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA) 

CETR U.S.-Brazil Commission on Economic and Trade Relations 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

CLC Commission for Labor Cooperation (NAFTA) 

CNL competitive need limitation 

COOL country of origin labeling 

CSQ country-specific quota 

CTD Committee on Trade and Development (WTO) 

CTE Committee on Trade and the Environment (WTO) 

CTI Committee on Trade and Investment (APEC) 

CTPA U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 

CU customs union 

DDA Doha Development Agenda (WTO) 

D-G Director-General (WTO) 

DSB Dispute Settlement Body (WTO) 

DSU Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO) 

EC European Communities 

EDA Economic Development Administration (USDOC) 

EHI U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative 

EIAP Earned Import Allowance Program (CAFTA-DR) 

EMC electromagnetic compatibility 

EMI electromagnetic interference 

ERS Economic Research Service (USDA) 

ETA Employment and Training Administration (USDOL) 

EU European Union 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) 

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA) 

FCN Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation 
xiv

FDI foreign direct investment 

Fed. Reg. Federal Register 

FTA free trade agreement 

FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas 

FTAAP Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific 

FTC Free Trade Commission (CAFTA-DR, NAFTA, Peru TPA) 

FY fiscal year 

G-20 Group of 20 (major world industrial and emerging market economies) 

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO) 

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

GDP gross domestic product 

GI geographical indication 

GPA Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO) 

GPS global positioning system 

GSP Generalized System of Preferences 

HELP Haiti Economic Lift Program 

HLRCC U.S.-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council 

HLRCF U.S.-EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum 

HOPE Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act 

HS Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (international) 

HTS Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

ICSID International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes 

ICT information and communication technology 

IMF International Monetary Fund 

IPEC Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 

IPR intellectual property rights 

IT information technology 

ITA International Technology Agreement (WTO) 

ITA International Trade Administration (USDOC) 

JCCT Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade 

JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 

KORUS FTA U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement 

LCA large civil aircraft 

LCIA London Court of International Arbitration 

LDBDC least-developed beneficiary developing country 

LTFV less than fair value 

MEA multilateral environmental agreement 

MFN most-favored nation 

MLIT Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MRA mutual recognition agreement 

MRL maximum residue limit 

NAAEC North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA) 

NAALC North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAFTA) 

NADB North American Development Bank (NAFTA) 

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement 

NAMA nonagricultural market access 

NAO National Administrative Office (NAFTA) 

NASA United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NBER National Bureau of Economic Research 

NGTF Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation (WTO) 

NTB nontariff barrier 
xv

NTM nontariff measure 

NTR normal trade relations 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties) 

OTEXA Office of Textiles and Apparel (USDOC) 

PCA Product Coverage Annex (OECD) 

PNTR permanent normal trade relations 

PTPA U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 

Pub. L. Public Law 

R&D research and development 

RMB renminbi 

ROOs rules of origin 

RTA regional trade agreement 

S&D special and differential treatment 

S&ED Strategic and Economic Dialogue 

SCM subsidies and countervailing measures 

SE Secretaría de Economía (Mexico) 

SITC Standard Industrial Trade Classification 

SLA Softwood Lumber Agreement 

SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises 

SOEs State-owned enterprises 

SPS sanitary and phytosanitary (standards) 

SSA sub-Saharan Africa 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TAAC Trade Adjustment Assistance Center 

TAAEA Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act 

TAATC Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation (USDOL) 

TBT Technical Barriers to Trade 

TEC Transatlantic Economic Council 

TGAAA Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act (ARRA) 

TIEA Tax Information Exchange Agreement 

TIFA trade and investment framework agreement 

TMT thousand metric tons 

TNC Trade Negotiations Committee (WTO) 

TPA trade promotion agreement 

TPF U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum 

TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership 

TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO) 

TRQ tariff-rate quota 

UK United Kingdom 

UN United Nations 

UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 

US&FCS United States and Foreign Commercial Service (USDOC) 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USCBP United States Customs and Border Protection (USDHS) 

USCIA United States Central Intelligence Agency 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDHS United States Department of Homeland Security 

USDOC United States Department of Commerce 

USDOE United States Department of Energy 

USDOL United States Department of Labor 
xvi

USDOS United States Department of State 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

USFDA United States Food and Drug Administration 

USITC United States International Trade Commission 

USMEF U.S. Meat Export Federation 

USTR United States Trade Representative 

WHO World Health Organization (UN) 

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization 

WTO World Trade Organization 
xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services expanded from $500.0 billion in 2010 to 

$560.0 billion in 2011 on a balance-of-payments basis, increasing for the second year in a 

row. The deficit on goods increased from $645.9 billion in 2010 to $738.3 billion in 

2011, although it continued to remain below the $835.7 billion record set in 2006. At the 

same time, the U.S. surplus on services rose from $145.8 billion in 2010 to a new record 

of $178.3 billion in 2011 (figure ES.1).

U.S. trade in goods and services grew in 2011, but by less than in 2010. Lower growth in 

U.S. aggregate demand led to similarly lower growth in U.S. imports of goods and 

services in 2011 compared to 2010. Likewise, generally lower growth in most foreign 

countries led to lower growth in U.S. exports of goods and services in 2011. The U.S. 

economic recovery that began in the summer of 2009 stalled in 2011 after a relatively 

weak rebound in 2010. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 1.7 percent in 2011, 

following growth of 3.0 percent in 2010 and a 3.5 percent contraction in 2009. The pace 

of global economic growth also slowed, from 5.3 percent in 2010 to 3.9 percent in 2011.

The U.S. dollar appreciated 2.2 percent in 2011 against a broad trade-weighted index of 

foreign currencies. The dollar fell against major European and Western Hemisphere 

currencies during the first half of the year, but rose against these currencies in the second 

half as financial markets abroad responded to increased concerns about fiscal stresses in 

Europe and the resultant risks to the global economic outlook. The Japanese yen and the 

Chinese yuan followed erratic paths against the dollar, but the dollar ended the year lower 

against both.

FIGURE ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1993–2011

Source: USDOC.

-1,000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Billions of $

U.S. services trade balance

U.S. goods trade balance
xviii

A summary of U.S. trade agreement activities in 2011 is presented below, followed by a 

table summarizing key developments on a monthly basis for the year (table ES.1). Trade 

agreement activities during 2011 included the administration of U.S. trade laws and

regulations; U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organisation 

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Asia-Pacific Economic 

Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); U.S. 

negotiation of and participation in free trade agreements (FTAs); and bilateral 

developments with major trading partners.

Key Trade Developments in 2011 

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations

Safeguard actions: The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC or the 

Commission) conducted no new safeguard investigations in 2011. Only one safeguard 

measure was in effect during 2011, involving imports of certain passenger vehicle and 

light truck tires from China. The President had imposed additional tariffs on such tires 

from China in September 2009 for a three-year period, setting the tariffs at 35 percent ad 

valorem in the first year, 30 percent ad valorem in the second year, and 25 percent ad 

valorem in the third year.

Section 301: In 2011, two Section 301 cases were ongoing from previous years and three 

new Section 301 petitions were filed. The two ongoing cases concerned the European 

Union (EU) meat hormone directive and China’s policies affecting trade and investment 

in green technologies. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) decided not to initiate any 

Section 301 investigations in response to the three petitions that were filed in 2011.

Special 301: In the 2011 Special 301 review, USTR examined the adequacy and 

effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection in 77 countries. USTR did 

not identify any countries as priority foreign countries, but identified 12 countries for its 

priority watch list: Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, 

Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, and Venezuela. The Special 301 report highlighted the need 

for greater IPR protection and enforcement in China, full and effective implementation of 

China’s WTO obligations, and U.S. concerns about China’s indigenous innovation 

policies. Although Russia remained on the priority watch list, the report noted that it has 

taken significant steps to improve IPR protection by enacting four pieces of IPR 

legislation. Twenty-nine countries remained on the watch list.

Antidumping duty investigations: The Commission instituted 21 new antidumping 

investigations and completed 4 investigations during 2011. Antidumping duty orders 

were issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) in all four of the 

investigations completed in 2011.

Countervailing duty investigations: The Commission instituted 12 new countervailing 

duty investigations and completed 3 investigations during 2011. Countervailing duty 

orders were issued by the USDOC in all three of the investigations completed in 2011.
xix

Sunset reviews: During 2011, the USDOC and the Commission instituted 61 sunset 

reviews of existing antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders and suspension 

agreements. The Commission completed 65 reviews, resulting in 53 antidumping duty 

and countervailing duty orders being continued for five additional years.

Section 337 investigations: During 2011, there were 128 active Section 337 

investigations and ancillary proceedings, 72 of which were instituted in 2011. Of these 72 

new proceedings, 64 were new Section 337 investigations and 8 were new ancillary 

proceedings relating to previously concluded investigations. In all but 5 of the 72 new 

Section 337 institutions in 2011, patent infringement was the only type of unfair act 

alleged. Just over one-half of the active investigations involved telecommunications and 

computer equipment; integrated circuits; and display devices, such as digital televisions. 

At the close of 2011, 70 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending 

at the Commission.

Trade Adjustment Assistance: In fiscal year (FY) 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor 

(USDOL) received 1,671 petitions for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for workers

harmed by imports, a decline from 2,222 petitions filed in FY 2010. USDOL certified 

1,116 petitions as eligible for TAA, and estimated that 98,515 workers were covered. 

Production shifting to a foreign country was cited as the leading basis for certification in 

FY 2011, followed by competition from imports. TAA programs also provided assistance 

in 2011 to farmers, firms, and communities adversely affected by imports.

Trade Preference Programs 

Generalized System of Preferences: The President’s authority to provide duty-free

treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program expired on 

December 31, 2010, and was renewed retroactively on October 21, 2011. Imports that 

were entered duty free under the GSP program totaled $18.5 billion in 2011, accounting 

for 5.1 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries and 0.85 percent of 

total imports from all trading partners. India was the leading GSP beneficiary in 2011, 

followed by Thailand, Brazil, and Indonesia. Petroleum-related products accounted for

just 3 percent of the value of U.S. GSP imports in 2011 compared with almost one-fourth 

in 2010, since Equatorial Guinea graduated from the program based on high income on 

January 1, 2011, and Angola, another major crude petroleum exporter, began entering its 

exports under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) rather than the GSP.

African Growth and Opportunity Act: At the end of 2011, 40 sub-Saharan African 

(SSA) countries were designated for benefits under AGOA, and 27 SSA countries were 

eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits. Duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA, 

including those covered by GSP, were valued at $53.8 billion in 2011. U.S. imports under 

AGOA, exclusive of GSP, were valued at $51.9 billion in 2011, up 34.2 percent from 

2010. This increase was driven mainly by a rise in the value of U.S. imports of 

petroleum-related products, which made up 93.5 percent of imports under AGOA in 

2011. Nigeria and Angola were the largest suppliers in 2011, accounting for 82.0 percent 

of U.S. imports under AGOA.

Andean Trade Preference Act: Preferential treatment under the Andean Trade 

Preference Act (ATPA) expired on February 12, 2011, but was renewed retroactively on 
xx

October 21, 2011, for Colombia and Ecuador only. U.S. imports under ATPA fell 69.6

percent in 2011 to $4.4 billion, reflecting primarily the lapse of the program, but also 

Peru’s exit from the program on December 31, 2010. As in recent years, Colombia 

remained the leading supplier, and petroleum-related products accounted for the 

overwhelming share (88.9 percent) of U.S. imports under ATPA.

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: In 2011, 17 countries and territories were 

eligible for trade preferences under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

(CBERA), and 8 were eligible under the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act 

(CBTPA), an amendment to CBERA. The value of U.S. imports under CBERA rose 25.1 

percent in 2011 to $3.6 billion. This growth reflected substantial increases in the prices of 

petroleum products, methanol, and fuel ethanol, which are major imports from CBERA 

countries, as well as in the volume of imports of petroleum products, fuel ethanol, and 

certain apparel items. Although Trinidad and Tobago remained the leading supplier of 

U.S. imports under CBERA, Haiti accounted for nearly all of U.S. imports of apparel 

entering under CBERA (including CBTPA) in 2011. U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti 

totaled $701.5 million, up more than one-third from 2010. Such imports from Haiti also 

benefited from trade preferences under the Haitian Hemisphere Opportunity through 

Partnership Encouragement Acts and the Haiti Economic Lift Program.

WTO, OECD, APEC, and Related Developments 

WTO developments: Participants in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) trade 

negotiations were able to examine the entire negotiated DDA package at a major review 

held in April 2011. Nonetheless, the chairman of the Trade Negotiating Committee 

reported that the inability of the major traders to reach a compromise over tariffs on 

industrial products was effectively blocking progress in other areas, an impasse that 

remained at the end of 2011. At the WTO’s Eighth Ministerial Conference, held in 

December, members approved the accessions of Russia, Montenegro, and Samoa. 

Members also adopted a number of decisions, many designed to help least-developed 

country (LDC) members, such as preferential treatment for trade in services and services 

suppliers from LDCs. Finally, the parties to the WTO plurilateral Agreement on 

Government Procurement reported the conclusion of negotiations on a revised agreement 

text, which was formally adopted in March 2012.

WTO dispute settlement: Of the eight new requests for dispute settlement consultations 

filed in 2011, one involved the United States as complainant and three as the respondent.

There were seven new dispute panels established during the year, including two at the 

request of the United States against China and one by China against the United States. 

Two of the longest-running disputes, involving U.S. and EU complaints about each 

other’s measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft, moved closer to conclusion in 

2011; the Appellate Body report was adopted in June 2011 for the U.S. complaint and the 

panel decision for the EU complaint was on appeal at the end of 2011.

OECD developments: At their 50th anniversary ministerial council meeting, held in May

2011, ministers from the 34 OECD member countries discussed policy challenges in the 

areas of growth, jobs, innovation, and skills; environmentally friendly “green” growth; 

new approaches to economic development; and trade and jobs. The revised Sector 

Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft (“Aircraft Sector Understanding”), 
xxi

concluded in principle in 2010, was formally incorporated in March 2011 into the 

Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (“Export Credit Arrangement”), 

Annex III.

APEC developments: APEC was hosted by the United States in 2011, culminating in the 

holding of the APEC annual summit in Honolulu, Hawaii, in November. Member 

economies worked toward greater regional economic integration, expanded a green 

growth initiative with the goal of future tariff reductions on environmental goods, and 

continued to build consensus around regulatory cooperation in specific industries. The 

APEC annual summit also served as a forum for discussing pathways toward a Free 

Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, a long-time goal of APEC. Countries negotiating the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, all of which are APEC members, used the 

event to release a broad outline of the agreement.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: The ACTA was signed on October 1, 2011, by 

eight countries––Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Morocco, 

New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States. The EU authorized ratification of ACTA 

on December 16, 2011, and submitted the agreement to the European Court of Justice to 

verify its compatibility with EU law. ACTA is to remain open for signature until May 1, 

2013.

FTA Developments in 2011 

U.S. FTAs in force in 2011: The United States was a party to 11 FTAs as of December 

31, 2011. These include the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) (which 

entered into force in 2009); the U.S.-Oman FTA (2009); a multiparty FTA with the 

countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR) that entered 

into force with respect to the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

and Nicaragua (2006–07), and then Costa Rica (2009); the U.S.-Bahrain FTA (2006); the 

U.S.-Morocco FTA (2006); the U.S.-Australia FTA (2005); the U.S.-Chile FTA (2004); 

the U.S.-Singapore FTA (2004); the U.S.-Jordan FTA (2001); the North American Free 

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1994); and the U.S.-Israel FTA (1985).

FTA developments: On October 21, 2011, the President signed legislation to implement 

the U.S.-Panama TPA, the U.S.-Colombia TPA,1 and the U.S.-Korea FTA.2 Also during 

the year, six rounds of negotiations were conducted related to negotiation of a TPP 

agreement, the only FTA currently actively under negotiation. On November 11, 2011, 

Canada, Japan, and Mexico announced their intentions to begin consultations with the 

aim of joining the TPP negotiations with the nine current participants––Australia, Brunei 

Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United 

States.

FTA merchandise trade flows with FTA partners: In 2011, total two-way merchandise 

trade between the United States and its FTA partners was $1.2 trillion, or 34.2 percent of 

U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to FTA partners 

increased by 17.9 percent to $512.6 billion and accounted for 39.5 percent of total U.S. 

exports. U.S. imports of goods from FTA partners grew at a slightly lower rate (15.1 

1 The U.S.-Colombia TPA entered into force on May 15, 2012.

2 The U.S.-Korea FTA entered into force on March 15, 2012.
xxii

percent) to $679.3 billion and accounted for 31.1 percent of global U.S. imports. The 

U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its FTA partners increased by $11.3 billion to $166.7 

billion in 2011. The United States had a trade deficit with its NAFTA partners of $185.4 

billion, as well as much smaller deficits with Oman and Israel. Excluding NAFTA, the 

United States registered a trade surplus with its FTA partners of $18.7 billion in 2011, up 

sharply from $11.5 billion in 2010. U.S. imports under FTA provisions were valued at 

$357.0 billion in 2011, accounting for 16.3 percent of total U.S. imports.

NAFTA developments: All of NAFTA’s provisions were fully implemented as of 

January 1, 2008, with the exception of the NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions. 

(Developments in the trucking provisions in 2011 are described in the Mexico section 

below.) In 2011, the United States and Mexico signed a bilateral mutual recognition 

agreement for telecommunications equipment in May, and Canada and Mexico signed a 

similar agreement in November. In 2011, the Commission for Labor Cooperation, 

responsible for implementing the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, a 

supplemental agreement to NAFTA, released a report, “Migrant Workers’ Rights in 

North America: Comparative Guides to Labor and Employment Laws in North America.” 

At the end of 2011, 12 files remained active under Articles 14 and 15 of the North 

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (a supplemental agreement to 

NAFTA), of which 3 were submitted in 2011.

NAFTA dispute settlement: In 2011, there was one active panel review in response to a 

request filed by a Canadian investor against the United States under NAFTA’s Chapter 

11 dispute settlement provision. In the same year, five active Chapter 11 cases were filed 

by U.S. investors against Canada, and three active Chapter 11 cases were filed by U.S. 

investors against Mexico. At yearend, the NAFTA Secretariat listed nine binational 

panels active under Chapter 19, eight of which challenged U.S. agencies’ antidumping 

and countervailing duty determinations. Among these panels, three were formed in 2011; 

two of these challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations on products from Mexico, and one 

challenged Mexico’s agency determination on products from the United States.

Trade Activities with Major Trade Partners 

European Union

The EU as a unit 3 continued to be the United States’ largest two-way (exports and 

imports) merchandise trading partner in 2011. U.S. merchandise trade with the EU was 

$603.5 billion in 2011, which accounted for 17.4 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. 

U.S. merchandise exports to the EU totaled $241.1 billion, while the value of U.S. 

merchandise imports from the EU was $362.4 billion, resulting in a merchandise trade 

deficit of $121.3 billion in 2011. Leading U.S. exports included aircraft and parts, 

petroleum-related products, certain medicaments, nonmonetary gold, coal, and passenger 

motor vehicles. Leading U.S. imports included certain medicaments, petroleum-related 

products, passenger motor vehicles, and nucleic acids and their salts. The EU was also 

the United States’ largest trading partner in terms of services in 2011, accounting for 33.4 

3 The 27 members of the EU in 2011 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the 

United Kingdom.
xxiii

percent of total U.S. services trade. The United States registered a trade surplus in 

services with the EU of $50.8 billion in 2011.

A major focus of the U.S.-EU trade relationship in 2011 was the work of the 

Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), an intergovernmental organization that aims to 

facilitate bilateral trade and investment and to build cooperation on global economic 

challenges and approaches with third countries (countries outside the EU and the United 

States). During the year, the TEC expanded its work plan and made progress on a number

of areas, including cooperation on regulations and standards, raw materials, small and 

medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), investment, and supply chain security. A Joint High 

Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth was also formed to identify policies and 

measures to increase U.S.-EU trade and investment to support mutually beneficial job 

creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness.

Canada 

Canada continued to be the United States’ largest single-country trading partner during 

2011. With total two-way merchandise trade valued at $550.2 billion, Canada accounted

for 15.8 percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to 

Canada amounted to $233.8 billion in 2011, and U.S. merchandise imports from Canada 

were $316.4 billion, resulting in a U.S. merchandise trade deficit of $82.6 billion. 

Leading U.S. merchandise exports to Canada included passenger and transport motor 

vehicles and related parts, as well as petroleum and natural-gas products. Leading U.S. 

merchandise imports from Canada were energy products—such as petroleum oil, 

propane, natural gas, and electrical energy—as well as passenger motor vehicles and 

related parts. Canada was the United States’ second-largest single-country partner in 

services trade after the United Kingdom in 2011, with a U.S. services trade surplus of 

$28.1 billion.

Topics on the U.S.-Canada trade agenda in 2011 included actions under the 2006 U.S.-

Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, developments relating to Canadian IPR 

legislation, and talks concerning U.S. government procurement legislation.

China 

In 2011, China was the United States’ second-largest single-country trading partner; total 

two-way merchandise trade was valued at $495.4 billion, accounting for 14.2 percent of 

U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to China were $96.9 

billion in 2011, and U.S. merchandise imports from China totaled $398.5 billion, 

resulting in a U.S. merchandise trade deficit of nearly $301.6 billion, higher than with 

any other single-country trading partner. Major U.S. merchandise exports to China 

included soybeans, metal waste and scrap, aircraft, automobiles, cotton, and computer 

chips. Major U.S. merchandise imports from China were computers and computer parts, 

wireless telephones, toys, and communication equipment. The United States had a 

services trade surplus of $13.4 billion with China in 2011.

China’s compliance with its WTO commitments remained a focus of U.S.-China trade 

relations in 2011. Notable areas of U.S. concern were China’s IPR enforcement, its
xxiv

industrial policies, its export restraints on raw material inputs, and its import bans on U.S. 

beef and poultry, as well as the valuation of the renminbi.

Mexico 

Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country trading partner in 2011, 

following Canada and China. With total two-way merchandise trade valued at $422.6 

billion, Mexico accounted for 12.1 percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. 

U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico amounted to $159.9 billion in 2011, and U.S. 

merchandise imports from Mexico were $262.7 billion, resulting in a merchandise trade 

deficit of $102.8 billion. Leading U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico included 

petroleum-related products, motor vehicles and parts, corn, natural gas, and soybeans. 

Leading U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico were petroleum and petroleum products, 

televisions, and motor vehicles and parts. The United States had a services trade surplus 

of $11.6 billion with Mexico in 2011.

On July 6, 2011, the United States and Mexico signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

on Cross-Border Trucking to resolve the dispute over the U.S. denial of entry to longhaul motor carriers based in Mexico. NAFTA required the United States to admit such 

carriers from Mexico. In 2009, Mexico had placed retaliatory duties on a number of U.S. 

products due to the trucking dispute. On July 8, 2011, Mexico suspended the duties on 

one-half of the U.S. products affected by these duties, and suspended the remainder on 

October 21, 2011.

Japan 

In 2011, U.S. merchandise trade with Japan—the United States’ fourth-largest singlecountry trading partner—was valued at $189.3 billion, accounting for 5.4 percent of U.S. 

merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Japan were $61.4 billion 

in 2011, and U.S. merchandise imports from Japan amounted to $127.9 billion, resulting 

in a merchandise trade deficit of $66.5 billion. Leading U.S. merchandise exports to 

Japan included aircraft and parts, corn, certain medicaments, wheat, and coal. Leading 

U.S. merchandise imports from Japan were passenger vehicles and parts, parts for 

printers and photocopying machines, machines for manufacturing computer chips, and 

parts for airplanes or helicopters. Japan was also the United States’ third-largest singlecountry partner in services trade in 2011, with a U.S. services trade surplus of $22.2 

billion.

The U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative (EHI) served as the primary forum 

for trade and economic dialogue between the two countries throughout 2011. The EHI 

focused on four themes: exchanging policy information, promoting economic 

cooperation, collaborating on common external challenges, and facilitating trade. Japan 

also began a review of existing barriers to U.S. beef imports, which currently restrict 

imports of beef from cattle older than 20 months of age. In addition, Japan suffered major 

damage to its infrastructure and industrial supply chains as a result of the March 11, 

2011, Great East Japan Earthquake, requiring close consultations between the United 

States and Japan and public reassurances on the safety of food products from Japan.
xxv

Korea 

During 2011, Korea was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country trading partner, 

with total two-way merchandise trade valued at $97.3 billion; Korea accounted for 2.8 

percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Korea 

were $41.3 billion in 2011, and U.S. merchandise imports from Korea were $56.0 billion, 

resulting in a merchandise trade deficit of $14.7 billion. Leading U.S. merchandise 

exports to Korea included computer chips, machinery for producing semiconductors and 

computer chips, aircraft, and corn. Leading U.S. merchandise imports from Korea were 

automobiles, cellular telephones, and computer chips. The United States had a services 

trade surplus of $8.4 billion with Korea in 2011.

The U.S.-Korea trade agenda in 2011 was dominated by the U.S.-Korea FTA and by beef 

trade issues. Legislation to implement the U.S.-Korea FTA was enacted by the United 

States in October 2011 and by Korea in November 2011. 4 The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture announced that it had awarded the U.S. Meat Export Federation additional 

funds in 2011 to promote U.S. beef sales in Korea. On the same day, USTR Ron Kirk 

informed Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, that 

shortly after the U.S.-Korea FTA enters into force, the United States will request 

consultations with Korea on expanding the quantity of beef qualifying for import into 

Korea.

Brazil 

In 2011, Brazil became the United States’ eighth-largest single-country trading partner, 

moving ahead of both France and Taiwan, which had ranked eighth and ninth, 

respectively, in 2010. U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil was valued at $67.6 billion in 

2011, accounting for 1.9 percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. exports 

to Brazil amounted to $37.3 billion, and U.S. imports from Brazil were $30.4 billion, 

which resulted in a U.S. merchandise trade surplus of $6.9 billion—slightly higher than 

the 2010 surplus. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil were aircraft and aircraft parts, 

petroleum oils and refined petroleum products, coal, and ethyl alcohol. Leading U.S. 

imports from Brazil included crude petroleum, unroasted coffee, pig iron and 

semifinished iron, chemical wood pulp, and ethyl alcohol. The U.S. services trade surplus 

with Brazil was $13.0 billion in 2011.

On March 19, 2011, the United States and Brazil signed the U.S.-Brazil Agreement on 

Trade and Economic Cooperation (ATEC). The ATEC established the U.S.-Brazil 

Commission on Economic and Trade Relations to manage the bilateral trade relationship 

and facilitate the expansion of trade and investment by deepening cooperation on issues 

including innovation, trade facilitation, agriculture, and technical barriers to trade. 

Taiwan 

Taiwan remained the United States’ ninth-largest single-economy trading partner in 

2011. Taiwan’s total two-way merchandise trade was valued at $65.0 billion, accounting 

for 1.9 percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to 

Taiwan totaled $23.8 billion in 2011, and U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan were 

4 The agreement entered into force on March 15, 2012.
xxvi

$41.2 billion, resulting in a merchandise trade deficit of $17.4 billion. Leading U.S. 

merchandise exports to Taiwan included semiconductor manufacturing and assembly 

equipment, computer chips, and ferrous waste and scrap. Leading U.S. merchandise 

imports from Taiwan were cellular telephones, semiconductors, and computer processors 

and computer parts. The United States had a services trade surplus of $3.9 billion with 

Taiwan in 2011.

In addition to concerns with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, new issues arose in 

2011 about imports of U.S. beef in Taiwan. Early in the year, Taiwan began testing for 

the growth hormone ractopamine in all U.S. beef products, which led to the further 

deferral of long-delayed high-level meetings under the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement.

India 

U.S. merchandise trade with India—the United States’ 13th-largest single-country trading 

partner—was valued at $53.7 billion in 2011, accounting for approximately 1.5 percent 

of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to India amounted to 

$17.7 billion in 2011, and U.S. merchandise imports from India amounted to $36.0 

billion, resulting in a merchandise trade deficit of $18.3 billion. Leading U.S. 

merchandise exports to India included diammonium phosphate, coal, nonmonetary gold, 

aircraft and aircraft parts, and nonindustrial diamonds. Leading U.S. merchandise imports 

from India were nonindustrial diamonds, petroleum-related products, certain 

medicaments for retail sale, and precious jewelry. India was the only major U.S. trading 

partner with which the United States did not have a surplus in services trade; in 2011, the 

United States had a services trade deficit of $5.3 billion with India.

The United States and India continued discussions throughout 2011 on high technology 

trade, infrastructure investment, and IPR awareness under the U.S.-India Trade Policy 

Forum. India also continued to maintain nontariff measures that adversely affected U.S. 

exports of agricultural products, such as cereal grains.

Russia 

In 2011, Russia was the United States’ 20th-largest single-country trading partner, with 

total two-way merchandise trade valued at $41.2 billion, accounting for 1.2 percent of 

U.S. trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Russia were $7.6 billion in 2011, 

and U.S. merchandise imports from Russia were $33.6 billion, resulting in a merchandise 

trade deficit of nearly $26.0 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Russia included boring and 

sinking machinery and related parts; gas turbines; and mechanical shovels, excavators, 

machinery, and related parts. Leading U.S. imports from Russia were petroleum-related 

products, which accounted for nearly 70 percent of U.S. imports from Russia. Data are 

not available for U.S. trade in private services with Russia.

Trade developments with Russia in 2011 involved both multilateral matters, such as the

invitation it received in December 2011 to accede to the WTO by July 2012, as well as 

bilateral matters with the United States and other trading partners concerning Russian 

agricultural tariff-rate quotas on beef, pork, and poultry, and Russia’s domestic efforts to 

legislate and enforce IPR.
xxvii 

January 

10: The North American Free Trade Agreement Free 

Trade Commission meets in Mexico City, Mexico. 

18: The United States requests an arbitration tribunal 

at the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) 

under the 2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber 

Agreement (SLA) to examine U.S. claims concerning 

the underpricing of public timber harvested from 

interior British Columbia. 

21: An LCIA arbitration tribunal issues its finding 

upholding U.S. claims under the 2006 SLA that 

provincial subsidy cases in Quebec and Ontario, 

Canada, circumvent the agreement’s rules. Canada 

begins charging additional export duties in March 

2011. 

31: The United States announces economic 

sanctions against Belarus for the government’s violent 

actions taken against political demonstrators following 

the 2010 elections. 

February 

18: The United States and its Trans-Pacific 

Partnership (TPP) partners––Australia, Brunei 

Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, 

Singapore, and Vietnam––conclude the fifth round of 

negotiations in Chile, making further progress toward 

conclusion of a TPP agreement. 

25: The United States announces economic 

sanctions against Libya for the government’s 

measures taken to suppress public dissent. 

28: The United States Trade Representative (USTR) 

concludes its Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of 

Notorious Markets. The review identifies more than 30 

Internet and physical markets providing goods and 

services that infringe on intellectual property rights 

(IPR).

March 

2: USTR announces a number of changes to the 

Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). These changes 

aim to advance regional trade and economic 

integration of the region’s textile and apparel sector. 

11: Japan experiences an earthquake and resulting 

tsunami and nuclear power plant disaster that kills 

over 15,000 people, destroys industrial property 

throughout northeast Japan, causes nuclear 

contamination, and damages infrastructure. Certain 

Japanese supply chains, most notably vehicle 

production, are disrupted for months. 

March––Continued

19: The United States and Brazil sign the U.S.-Brazil 

Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation to 

help promote trade between the two countries. 

23: USTR and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

announce that the United States and Chile have 

reached an agreement making U.S. producers eligible 

to ship a larger array of U.S. beef and beef products 

to Chile. 

25: The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute 

Settlement Body (DSB) adopts the Appellate Body 

report regarding an appeal by China of the panel 

report concerning U.S. definitive antidumping and 

countervailing duties on certain products from China 

(DS379).

25: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel to 

consider a complaint by the United States concerning 

certain Chinese measures affecting electronic 

payment services (DS413). 

25: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel to 

consider a complaint by the United States concerning 

China’s countervailing and antidumping duties on 

grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel from the 

United States (DS414). 

April 

1: The European Union (EU) requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with the United States 

concerning U.S. antidumping measures on imports of 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy 

(DS424).

1: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the sixth round of TPP negotiations in Singapore. 

7: The United States and Colombia initial the 

Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights. 

Under this plan, negotiated in the context of the 

bilateral trade promotion agreement, Colombia 

commits to revise some of its labor laws and step up 

its enforcement of worker rights. 

11: USTR announces an additional country-specific 

quantity for the U.S. tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for 

imported raw cane sugar for the remainder of fiscal 

year (FY) 2011, as well as country-specific 

reallocations of the TRQ quantity to countries able to 

fill the additional amounts. 

May

2: USTR issues its 2011 Special 301 Report on IPR, 

including an invitation to governments listed in the 

report to cooperate in developing action plans to help 

resolve issues of concern regarding IPR violations. 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2011 trade agreement activities 
xxviii 

May––Continued

9–10: The third joint meeting of the United StatesChina Strategic and Economic Dialogue takes place 

in Washington, DC. Several topics are discussed, 

including sustainable and balanced economic growth, 

the global financial system, and the promotion of 

trade and investment between the two countries. 

19–20: The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) forum in Big Sky, Montana, draws trade 

ministers and other ministers responsible for small 

and medium-sized enterprises in APEC countries. 

The meeting’s main focus is to lay out APEC goals for 

the year and to address barriers to trade confronting 

small business owners and exporters in the AsiaPacific region. 

19: APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade call for 

setting up an Experts Group on Illegal Logging and 

Associated Trade to promote trade in legally 

harvested forest products, combat illegal logging and 

associated trade, and support capacity building in 

member economies. 

23: The United States announces further economic 

sanctions against Iran under the 1996 Iran Sanctions 

Act, as amended. The United States prohibits U.S. 

financial dealings with sanctioned individuals and 

entities; blocks property and interests in property; and 

restricts or prohibits direct or indirect imports of 

goods, technology, or services into the United States 

from sanctioned individuals. 

25–26: Members of the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development hold their 50th 

anniversary Ministerial Council meeting in Paris, 

France, focusing on key policy challenges concerning 

economic growth, trade, jobs, innovation and skills, 

“green” growth, and economic development. 

26: The United States and Mexico sign a mutual 

recognition agreement on telecommunications 

products. 

27: The United States lifts additional duties that had 

been imposed in 1999 on EU products in connection 

with the WTO dispute over an EU ban on meat 

treated with growth-promoting hormones (DS26). 

June 

1: The U.S. Treasury Department removes the 

Taliban (Afghanistan) Sanctions Regulations from 

U.S. law, following revocation of the underlying 

Executive Order. 

1: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body report 

on a complaint by the United States concerning the 

EU and certain member states’ measures affecting 

trade in large civil aircraft (“Airbus” dispute) (DS316). 

June––Continued

7: Following a U.S. request in January for WTO 

dispute settlement consultations with China 

concerning wind power equipment (DS419), USTR 

announces that China has ended its “Special Fund” 

subsidy program for wind turbine manufacturers using 

local-content parts and components. 

9–10: The 10th African Growth and Opportunity Act 

(AGOA) forum is held in Lusaka, Zambia. 

15: The Peruvian Congress passes a new Forestry 

and Wildlife Law that sets out key reforms called for 

under the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 

Agreement Annex on Forest Sector Governance. 

Under the annex, both countries commit to combat 

illegal logging and illegal trade in wildlife. 

17: The WTO DSB adopts the dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by Brazil concerning U.S. 

antidumping administrative reviews and other 

measures related to imports of certain orange juice 

from Brazil (DS382). 

21: USTR announces an additional country-specific 

quantity for the U.S. TRQ for imported raw cane sugar 

for the remainder of FY 2011. 

24: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the seventh round of TPP negotiations in Vietnam. 

July 

5: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by the United States 

concerning China’s restraints on the export of a 

number of raw materials (DS394). 

8: USTR announces the resolution of a cross-border 

trucking dispute between the United States and 

Mexico. Following a Memorandum of Understanding 

on Cross-Border Motor Trucking signed by both 

parties, Mexico agrees to reduce by 50 percent the 

retaliatory tariffs it applies on 99 products exported 

from the United States. The remaining tariffs were 

suspended on October 21, 2011. 

18: The President issues an Executive Order 

imposing sanctions against Syrian officials. 

21: The United States contributes $1.2 million to 

WTO’s trade-related technical assistance program, 

which provides training for developing countries to 

participate more effectively in WTO activities. 

August 

5: USTR announces the country-specific U.S. TRQ 

allocations for imported raw cane sugar; refined and 

specialty sugars; and sugar-containing products for 

FY 2012. 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2011 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxix 

August––Continued

9: The United States requests the establishment of 

an arbitral panel under CAFTA-DR to examine 

Guatemala’s apparent failure to effectively enforce its 

labor laws. 

18: The United States announces economic 

sanctions against Syria for the government's violent 

measures taken against the Syrian people. The 

additional sanctions block the property of the Syrian 

government, ban U.S.persons from new investments 

in or exporting services to Syria, and ban U.S. imports 

of, and other transactions or dealings in, Syrian-origin 

crude petroleum or petroleum products. 

31: China appeals the WTO DSB dispute panel 

report regarding a complaint by the United States 

concerning China’s restraints on the export of a 

number of raw materials (DS394). 

September 

2: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by Indonesia concerning U.S. 

measures affecting the production and sale of clove 

cigarettes (DS406). 

2: The WTO DSB adopts the dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by Vietnam concerning U.S. 

antidumping measures on certain shrimp from 

Vietnam and “zeroing” methodology used by the 

United States (DS404). 

15: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the eighth round of TPP negotiations in Chicago. 

22: The United States and Kazakhstan sign a 

bilateral market-access agreement as part of 

Kazakhstan’s WTO accession negotiations. 

23: The WTO announces its revised forecast of 5.8 

percent for the growth in the volume of world trade in 

2011, down from its earlier estimate of 6.5 percent. 

27: Korea agrees to suspend its request for a WTO 

dispute panel to review U.S. antidumping measures 

on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from 

Korea (DS420) so that Korea can continue bilateral 

discussions with the United States. 

30: USTR announces allocation increases for the 

U.S. TRQ for imported refined sugar in FY 2011. 

October 

1: The United States and seven other countries sign 

the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in 

Tokyo, Japan. ACTA aims to strengthen enforcement 

of IPR worldwide by increasing protection for export 

industries heavily reliant upon innovation and creative 

content. 

5: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body report 

regarding a complaint by China concerning U.S. 

measures affecting imports of certain passenger 

vehicle and light truck tires from China (DS399). 

6: The United States submits information to the WTO 

identifying nearly 200 subsidy programs that China 

has failed to notify as required under WTO rules. 

Information is also submitted on 50 subsidy programs 

in India not previously notified. 

21: The President signs into law legislation 

implementing the U.S.-Colombia, U.S.-Korea, and 

U.S.-Panama free trade agreements (FTAs), as well 

as renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance, the 

Andean Trade Preference Act, and the Generalized 

System of Preferences. 

21: President Obama signs the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) Extension Act of 2011. The act 

changes the group eligibility requirements for some 

workers under the TAA program, as well as the 

individual benefits and services available. 

25: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel to 

consider a complaint by China concerning U.S. 

antidumping measures on certain shrimp and 

diamond sawblades from China (DS422). 

25: The President signs a proclamation designating 

Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Niger as eligible 

beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries under 

AGOA, after the three countries hold Presidential 

elections considered to be free and fair. 

26: The WTO General Council invites Vanuatu to 

accede to the WTO. Vanuatu needs to ratify its 

protocol of accession by December 31, 2011, to 

complete the accession process. 

28: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the ninth round of TPP negotiations in Peru. 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2011 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxx 

November 

8–13: APEC leaders and ministers meet in Honolulu, 

Hawaii, for the annual APEC Summit, hosted by the 

United States. Beyond providing a venue for bilateral 

and multilateral trade discussions on the margins, the 

focus of the meetings is on progress made during the 

year on regional economic integration, promoting 

“green” growth through future tariff reductions, and 

advancing regulatory cooperation. 

11: Japanese Prime Minister Noda announces that 

Japan will begin consultations with countries presently 

negotiating the TPP FTA in order to explore the 

possibility of joining negotiations. 

12: On the margins of the APEC summit, the leaders 

of the nine TPP countries announce the broad 

outlines of a TPP agreement aimed at enhancing 

trade and investment among TPP partner countries. 

12: The President signs the APEC Business Travel 

Card Act of 2011, designed to expedite travel in the 

Asia-Pacific region for qualified U.S. travelers. The act 

authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to 

issue APEC Travel Cards to eligible U.S. business 

leaders and government officials actively engaged in 

APEC business. 

18: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by Canada (DS384) and 

Mexico (DS386) concerning U.S. country of origin 

labeling requirements. 

20–21: The United States and China conclude the 

22nd session of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 

Commerce and Trade in Chengdu, China. Topics 

discussed include enforcement of IPR in China, the 

removal of trade barriers on electric vehicles, and 

China’s “indigenous innovation” policies. 

21: The United States announces economic 

sanctions against Iran affecting trade in goods, 

services, and technology, as well as Iran’s energy and 

petrochemical sectors. 

22: The Korean National Assembly passes legislation 

approving the U.S.-Korea FTA. 

28: At the annual U.S.-EU Summit, leaders task the 

Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) with identifying 

policies and measures to increase U.S.-EU trade and 

investment in order to spur economic growth and job 

creation. 

29: The TEC holds its annual meeting in Washington, 

DC.

December 

2: The United States and Rwanda ratify the U.S.-

Rwanda bilateral investment treaty. The treaty enters 

into force on January 1, 2012. 

8: The United States requests the establishment of a 

WTO dispute panel to examine Chinese antidumping 

and countervailing duty measures on broiler products 

from the United States (DS427). 

9: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the 10th round of negotiations in Malaysia. 

12: USTR releases its 2011 Report to Congress on 

China’s WTO Compliance. 

14: China imposes antidumping and countervailing 

duties totaling nearly 22 percent on imports of sportutility vehicles and midsize and large automobiles 

from the United States. 

14: USTR announces U.S. initiatives to help leastdeveloped country (LDC) WTO members benefit 

more fully from world trade by renewing technical 

assistance programs for West African cottonproducing countries, expanding duty-free and quotafree treatment for certain cotton grown in LDCs, and 

providing additional help to countries seeking to 

maximize their use of existing U.S. trade preference 

programs. 

15–17: WTO members hold their Eighth WTO 

Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. 

15: Parties to the plurilateral WTO Agreement on 

Government Procurement present the revised text of 

the agreement at the Eighth WTO Ministerial 

Conference. The revised text is formally adopted on 

March 30, 2012. 

16: WTO members at their Ministerial Conference 

invite Russia to accede to the WTO. Russia has 220 

days––until July 23, 2012––to ratify its protocol of 

accession in order to complete its accession process. 

16: The United States unfreezes U.S. economic 

sanctions against the Libyan government, making 

government and central bank funds available, with 

limited exceptions, to the new government of Libya. 

17: WTO members at their Ministerial Conference 

invite Montenegro and Samoa to accede to the WTO. 

Montenegro has until March 31, 2012, to ratify its 

protocol of accession; Samoa has until June 15, 

2012. 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2011 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxxi 

December––Continued

17: WTO trade ministers at the Eighth Ministerial 

Conference in Geneva adopt several decisions 

designed to assist LDC members by (1) helping them 

better meet their obligations under the WTO TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 

(TRIPS) Agreement, (2) offering them easier WTO 

accession terms, and (3) giving preferential treatment 

for trade in services with LDCs and LDC service 

suppliers. 

19: The United States reports that it has fully 

implemented the WTO DSB’s recommendations and 

rulings in the case regarding a complaint from Korea 

about the U.S. use of zeroing methodology in 

antidumping measures involving Korean products 

(DS402) within the reasonable period of time agreed 

by the parties. 

December––Continued 

20: USTR issues its Special 301 Out-of-Cycle 

Review of Notorious Markets. The report identifies 

more than 30 Internet and physical markets providing 

goods and services that infringe on IPR. 

21: The WTO DSB circulates the Appellate Body 

report regarding complaints by the EU (DS396) and 

the United States (DS403) about taxes on distilled 

spirits levied by the Philippines. 

22: The United States requests authorization from 

the WTO DSB to suspend tariff concessions and 

other trade-related obligations in response to EU and 

certain member states’ failure to comply with DSB 

recommendations and rulings concerning measures 

affecting trade in large civil aircraft (DS316). 

Sources: Compiled from official and private sources, including the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department 

of State, U.S. Trade Representative, White House, World Trade Organization, Inside U.S. Trade, and Washington 

Trade Daily.

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2011 trade agreement activities––Continued

1-1

CHAPTER 1 

Overview of U.S. Trade 

Scope and Approach of the Report 

This report provides factual information on the operation of the U.S. trade agreements 

program and its administration for calendar year 2011.1

 Trade agreement activities during 

2011 include the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations; U.S. participation in 

the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the 

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); U.S. negotiation of and participation in 

free trade agreements (FTAs); and bilateral developments with major trading partners. 

This report is based on primary source materials about U.S. trade programs and 

administrative actions pertaining to them. These materials chiefly encompass U.S. 

government reports, notices, and news releases, including publications and news releases 

by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC or the Commission). Other primary 

sources of information include publications of international institutions, such as the 

International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, OECD, WTO, United Nations (UN), 

and foreign governments. The report draws on professional journals, trade publications, 

and news reports for supplemental factual information when primary source information 

is unavailable. 

Merchandise trade data are provided throughout the report. Chapters 1 and 5 also provide 

data on services trade. Services data were compiled by the Commission primarily from 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC 

or Commerce). 

This chapter includes an overview of the U.S. economy in 2011, followed by sections on 

U.S. trade in goods and U.S. trade in services in 2011. 

Overview of the U.S. Economy in 2011 

The U.S. economic recovery that began in the summer of 2009 stalled in 2011 after a 

relatively weak rebound in 2010.2

 This recovery has followed the longest recession since 

World War II.3

 Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew 1.7 percent in 2011, following 

growth of 3.0 percent in 2010 and a 3.5 percent contraction in 2009 (figure 1.1). This 

 1

 This is the 63rd in a series of annual reports submitted to the U.S. Congress under sect. 163(c) of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2213(c)) and its predecessor legislation. 2

 For example, the largest one-year drop in real GDP between 1947 and 2008—1.9 percent in 1982—

was followed by growth of 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984. USDOC, BEA. 3

 National Bureau of Economic Research, “September 20, 2010 Announcement,” n.d. (accessed April 9, 

2012).
1-2

FIGURE 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, annual rate of change, 2002–11 

Source: USDOC. http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls.

weak growth, along with other factors, such as modest employment gains,4 prompted the 

U.S. Federal Reserve to maintain a target range for the federal funds rate5

 of 0 to 0.25 

percent throughout the year and to state that economic conditions are likely to warrant 

exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through the middle of 2013.6

The increase in real GDP in 2011 mostly reflected a positive contribution from personal 

consumption expenditures (1.53 percentage points), although there were small positive 

contributions from gross private investment (0.60 percentage points) and net exports 

(0.05 percentage points), and a small negative contribution from government spending (–

0.44 percentage points).7

U.S. international trade continued to grow in 2011, although the percentage increase was 

less than in 2010. U.S. imports of goods and services grew at a little under three-fourths 

of the rate at which they grew in 2010, reflecting the lower growth in aggregate demand 

in the United States; U.S. exports of goods and services grew at less than 90 percent of 

the rate for 2010, reflecting generally lower growth in most other countries. The global 

economy grew only 3.9 percent in 2011, compared to 5.3 percent in 2010.8

 Economic 

growth fell in major advanced economies to 1.6 percent from 3.2 percent, and while 

many emerging and developing economies saw robust growth in both years, growth was 

slower in 2011 (average 6.2 percent in 2011 compared to 7.5 percent in 2010). Among 

major U.S. trading partners, output growth in the European Union (EU) euro area fell 

from 1.9 percent in 2010 to 1.4 percent in 2011; in the United Kingdom, from 2.1 percent 

 4

 Following the recent recession, the unemployment rate has exceeded 8 percent for three years in a row, 

the only period since World War II when unemployment has stayed that high for more than two years. 5

 The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend their excess Federal 

Reserve deposits to each other. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Regulatory Reform, 

Glossary,” http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_glossary.htm#depositoryinstitution (accessed 

May 8, 2012). 6 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Monetary Policy Report to the Congress,

February 29, 2012, 39–43. 7 USDOC, BEA, “Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2011,” March 29, 2012. 

8

 IMF, World Economic Outlook April 2012, April 2012, table 1.1, 2. 

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Percent
1-3

in 2010 to 0.7 percent in 2011; in Canada, from 3.2 percent in 2010 to 2.5 percent in 

2011; in Mexico, from 5.5 percent in 2010 to 4.0 percent in 2011; in Japan, from 4.4 

percent to –0.7 percent (reflecting the March 11, 2011, earthquake and its aftermath); in 

China, from 10.4 percent in 2010 to 9.2 percent in 2011; and in India, from 10.6 percent 

in 2010 to 7.2 percent in 2011.9

Exchange Rate Trends 

The U.S. dollar appreciated 2.2 percent in 2011 against a broad dollar index.10 The dollar 

fell 4 to 10 percent against major European and Western Hemisphere currencies by midspring before fluctuating in a narrow range into the summer (as shown in figure 1.2). The 

dollar began to strengthen against the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso early in August 

and against the euro and British pound in early September. The Japanese yen and the 

Chinese yuan followed idiosyncratic paths against the dollar, but the dollar ended the 

year lower against both. In the first half of the year, developments abroad were 

dominated by several shocks, including the political turmoil in the Middle East and North 

Africa, the major earthquake and tsunami in Japan, heightened fiscal stresses in Europe, 

and swings in commodity prices. In the second half of the year, financial market 

developments abroad were heavily influenced by increased concerns about fiscal stresses 

in Europe and the resultant risks to the global economic outlook. For the year, the dollar 

depreciated 0.3 percent against the pound, 4.5 percent against the yuan, and 5.6 percent 

against the yen, while appreciating 2.7 percent against the Canadian dollar, 3.1 percent 

against the euro, and 13.9 percent against the peso. 

Balance of Payments11

The U.S. current-account deficit—the combined balances of trade in goods and services, 

income, and net unilateral current transfers—rose slightly from $470.9 billion (revised) in 

2010 to $473.3 billion (preliminary) in 2011, the second consecutive annual increase in 

the deficit.12 The deficit fell, however, as a share of U.S. GDP, from 3.2 percent in 2010 

to 3.1 percent in 2011. Although small, the increase in the current-account deficit was 

due to a large increase in the goods deficit, partly offset by increases in the surpluses on 

services and income and a decrease in net unilateral current transfers to foreigners. 

 9

 Ibid. 

10 The broad dollar index is a weighted average of the foreign exchange values of the U.S. dollar 

against the currencies of a large group of major U.S. trading partners. 11 Trade data in this section of the report may not match data in other sections or the appendix because 

it is reported on a balance-of-payments (BOP) basis. Total goods data are reported on a BOP basis, whereas 

detailed commodity and country data for goods are reported on a Census basis. The Census-basis data for 

goods used elsewhere in this report are compiled from the documents collected by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (USCBP) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) and reflect the movement of 

goods between foreign countries and the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and U.S. foreign trade zones. Data on goods compiled on a Census basis are adjusted by the USDOC 

BEA to a BOP basis to bring the data in line with the concepts and definitions used to prepare the 

international and national accounts. These adjustments are made to supplement coverage of the Census-basis 

data, to eliminate duplication of transactions recorded elsewhere in the international accounts, and to value 

transactions according to a standard definition. For a more detailed discussion of the differences between 

BOP-basis and Census-basis data, see USDOC, BEA, “A Guide,” February 2010. 12 Unless otherwise indicated, information in this section is from USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International 

Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2011,” March 14, 2012. 
1-4

FIGURE 1.2 Indices of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 2011a

Source: U.S. Federal Reserve Board. 

a

Units of the foreign currency per unit of the U.S. dollar. A decrease in the index represents a depreciation of the 

U.S. dollar relative to the foreign currency, and an increase in the index represents an appreciation of the U.S. dollar 

relative to the foreign currency. 

Specifically, the deficit on international trade in goods increased 14.3 percent, from 

$645.9 billion in 2010 to $738.3 billion in 2011. At the same time, the surplus on 

international trade in services grew 22.3 percent, from $145.8 billion to $178.3 billion. 

The surplus on income grew even faster, rising 33.8 percent, from $165.2 billion to 

$221.1 billion. 13 Net unilateral current transfers to foreigners fell 1.1 percent, from 

$136.1 billion to $134.6 billion.14 Finally, net financial inflows, which offset the deficit 

 13 The balance in income is income receipts (including income receipts on U.S.-owned assets abroad 

and compensation of U.S. employees abroad) less income payments (including income payments on foreignowned assets in the United States and compensation of foreign employees in the United States). 14 Net unilateral current transfers measures transactions in which goods, services, or financial assets are 

transferred between U.S. residents and residents of other countries without something of economic value 

being received or provided in return. There are three major components: U.S. government grants (e.g., 

foreign assistance to developing countries), U.S. government pensions and other transfers, and private 

remittances and other transfers (e.g., charitable remittances). 

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Depreciation $ Appreciation 

Euro Pound Canadian dollar Yuan Yen Peso

January 3, 2011 = 100
1-5

on current account,15 were $394.1 billion, up from $254.3 billion in 2010.16

The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services increased from $500.0 billion in 2010 to 

$560.0 billion in 2011, rising for the second year in row. The deficit on goods rose from 

$645.9 billion in 2010 to $738.3 billion in 2011—the fifth year in a row with a goods 

deficit below the record of $835.7 billion in 2006. U.S. exports of goods increased from 

$1,288.7 billion to $1,497.3 billion in 2011, as exports in all major product categories 

increased substantially. Imports of goods rose from $1,934.6 billion to $2,235.7 billion; 

here, too, the figures for all major product categories showed growth. 

The U.S. surplus on services grew from $145.8 billion in 2010 to $178.3 billion in 2011, 

a new annual record.17 Services exports rose from $548.9 billion to $607.7 billion during 

this period. All major categories of services exports increased, with the largest increases 

in other private services18 and travel. At the same time, services imports also increased, 

rising from $403.0 billion to $429.3 billion. All major categories of services imports 

increased except direct defense expenditures and U.S. government miscellaneous 

services. 

U.S. Trade in Goods in 2011 

The value of both U.S. merchandise exports and U.S. merchandise imports increased 

substantially in 2011, exceeding the record levels set in 2008. 19 The value of U.S. exports 

and imports of goods grew by 15.8 percent and 15.2 percent respectively, as the U.S. and 

world economies continued to recover from the downturn of 2008–09 and some 

commodity prices rose. However, merchandise imports continued to exceed merchandise 

exports, both in absolute terms and as a share of U.S. GDP. U.S. merchandise exports 

increased from $1,122 billion (7.7 percent of GDP) in 2010 to $1,299 billion (8.6 percent 

of GDP) in 2011 (figure 1.3), while U.S. merchandise imports increased from $1,899 

billion (13.1 percent of GDP) in 2010 to $2,187 billion (14.5 percent of GDP) in 2011. 

The ratio of merchandise trade to GDP fell to its lowest level in recent years in 2009, 

when the recession bottomed out, but exceeded prerecession levels, especially for 

exports, in 2011. 

 15 The other major offset to the current account deficit is statistical discrepancies. 

16 Net financial inflows are net acquisitions by foreign residents of assets in the United States less net 

acquisitions by U.S. residents of assets abroad. The main components of the financial account are capital 

transfers, foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, banking and other flows, statistical discrepancies, 

and official reserve assets. 17 BOP data include trade in private services, as well as transfers under U.S. military agency sales 

contracts and U.S. government purchases of miscellaneous services. U.S. trade in services is described in 

detail below. 18 Exports of other private services include “mainly film and television tape rentals and expenditures of 

foreign residents temporarily working in the United States.” USDOC, BEA,”U.S. International Transactions 

Accounts Data: Table 3a: Private Services Transactions,” March 14, 2011. 19 Merchandise trade data in this section do not match the BOP-basis data presented above because of 

adjustments made to the data, as described in footnote 11. 
1-6

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

FIGURE 1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2009–11

Source: USDOC. 

U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category 

Exports

U.S. exports in all 1-digit categories under the Standard International Trade Classification 

(SITC) system increased from 2010 to 2011 (appendix table A.1). Machinery and 

transport equipment, which consistently ranks as the largest U.S. SITC export category, 

accounted for 36.3 percent of exports in 2011. U.S. exports of machinery and transport 

equipment were valued at $471.0 billion in 2011, up 11.0 percent from $424.4 billion in 

2010. Sixty-four percent of the total increase in U.S. exports in 2011 was accounted for 

by increased exports of goods from the following three SITC groups (see appendix table 

A.2 for details at the Schedule B subheading level): mineral fuels, lubricants, and related 

materials (mainly refined petroleum products and coal); machinery and transport 

equipment (mainly aircraft, motor vehicles, electrical and nonelectrical machinery, and 

parts thereof); and food and live animals (mainly corn and wheat). 

Imports

U.S. imports of goods in all SITC groups increased $288.3 billion, or 15.2 percent, 

between 2010 and 2011. Nearly 60 percent of the increase in U.S. imports in 2011 was 

accounted for by increased imports of goods from the following two SITC groups (see 

appendix table A.3 for details at the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTS) subheading level), which were also the largest U.S. import categories in 2011: 

mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials (mainly crude petroleum and refined 

petroleum products); and machinery and transport equipment (mainly motor vehicles; 

computers, cellular telephones, and other electronic products; and parts of the foregoing). 
1-7

U.S. imports of mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials were valued at $429.4 

billion in 2011, up 27.7 percent from $336.1 billion in 2010. This SITC group accounted 

for 19.6 percent of total U.S. imports in 2011, up from 17.7 percent in 2010. U.S. imports 

of machinery and transport equipment increased 11.1 percent, from $710.8 billion in 

2010 to $789.7 billion in 2011, which accounted for 36.1 percent of total U.S. imports in 

2011. 

U.S. Imports under Preferential Trade Programs and Free Trade

Agreements 

The value of U.S. imports under the United States’ four preferential trade programs with 

developing countries fell slightly, from $78.5 billion in 2010 to $78.4 billion in 2011; 

they made up 3.6 percent of total U.S. imports during 2011. Most of these entered free of 

duty. Duty-free imports totaled $18.5 billion under the U.S. Generalized System of 

Preferences (GSP) program (appendix table A.12); $51.9 billion (excluding GSP imports) 

under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) (appendix table A.15); and $4.4 

billion under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) (appendix table A.17). In 

addition, imports that entered free of duty or at reduced rates under the Caribbean Basin 

Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) totaled $3.6 billion (appendix table A.19). A much 

larger share of U.S. imports enter under free trade or trade promotion agreement 

provisions; the value of these imports increased in 2011 to $356.0 billion, or 16.3 percent 

of total U.S. imports.20

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Leading Partners21

Table 1.1 shows U.S. trade with selected major trading partners, ranked by total trade 

(exports and imports) in 2011.22 The EU as a unit remained the leading global market for 

U.S. exports, while China, which overtook the EU as the leading source of U.S. imports 

in 2009, continued to hold that position through 2011. Canada remained the largest 

single-country two-way trading partner of the United States, followed by China and 

Mexico. Figures 1.4 and 1.5 show leading U.S. export markets and import suppliers, 

respectively, by share in 2011. 

China alone accounted for 34.0 percent, or $301.6 billion, of the total U.S. merchandise 

deficit of $887.8 billion in 2011, up from $278.3 billion in 2010. Canada and Mexico, 

which are partners with the United States in the North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA), together accounted for 20.9 percent ($185.4 billion) of this deficit. U.S. 

exports to China rose at a faster rate (13.0 percent) than U.S. imports from China (9.5 

percent) over the 2010–11 period, albeit from a smaller base. 

 20 See chapter 2 of this report for further information on the trade preference programs and chapter 4 for 

information on U.S. FTAs. 21 See chapter 5 for further information on U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners, 

including the EU, Canada, China, Mexico, and other countries. 22 Leading U.S. exports to and imports from these partners are presented in appendix tables A.23 

through A.52. 
1-8

EU, 18%

Canada, 18%

China, 7%

Mexico, 12% Japan, 5%

Korea, 3%

Brazil, 3%

Taiwan, 2%

India, 1%

Russia, <1%

All others, 30%

TABLE 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2011, billions of dollars 

Major trading partner U.S. exports U.S. imports Trade balance 

Two-way trade 

(exports plus 

imports) 

EU-27 241.1 362.4 –121.3 603.5 

Canada 233.8 316.4 –82.6 550.2 

China 96.9 398.5 –301.6 495.4 

Mexico 159.9 262.7 –102.8 422.6 

Japan 61.4 127.9 –66.5 189.3 

Korea 41.3 56.0 –14.7 97.3 

Brazil 37.3 30.4 6.9 67.6 

Taiwan 23.8 41.2 –17.4 65.0 

India 17.7 36.0 –18.3 53.7 

Russia 7.6 33.6 –26.0 41.2 

All others 378.4 521.9 –143.5 900.3 

 World 1,299.2 2,187.0 –887.8 3,486.1 

Source: USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 

FIGURE 1.4 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2011

Total = $1,299 billion 

Source: USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent. 
1-9

FIGURE 1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2011

Total = $2,187 billion 

Source: USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent. 

U.S. Trade in Services in 201123

The U.S. surplus in cross-border private services trade increased 19.3 percent in 2011 to 

$193.5 billion (figure 1.6).24 This represented the second consecutive year of growth in 

U.S. services trade since 2009, when the global recession led to a contraction in this 

domain. Cross-border exports of private services rose 11.0 percent in 2011 to $588.8 

billion, while imports rose 7.4 percent to $395.3 billion. The growth in U.S. exports of 

private services was broad-based, with each of the 11 services categories posting gains in 

2011. The strengthening U.S. economy also triggered an increase in imports in most 

categories of private services. Appendix table A.4 provides data on U.S. trade in private 

services by product category. 

 23 This section focuses chiefly on cross-border transactions in private services, which exclude 

government sales and purchases of services. Services trade data are drawn from the BEA. In these national 

accounts data, “cross-border transactions” occur when firms resident in one country provide services to 

consumers in another, with people, information, or money crossing U.S. boundaries in the process. Crossborder transactions appear explicitly as imports and exports in the balance of payments. U.S. firms also sell 

services to foreign consumers through affiliates established in host countries, with the income generated 

through “affiliate transactions” appearing as investment income in the balance of payments. The channel of 

delivery used by service providers depends primarily on the nature of the service. For example, many 

financial services, such as retail banking services, are supplied most effectively by affiliates located close to 

the consumer. Conversely, trade in education services usually takes the form of cross-border transactions, 

with students traveling abroad to attend foreign universities. For more information on services trade, see 

USITC, Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2012 Annual Report, July 2012. 24 USDOC, BEA,“U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data: Table 3a,” March 14, 2011. 

All others, 25%

China, 18%

EU, 17%

Canada, 14%

Mexico, 12%

Japan, 6%

Korea, 3%

Taiwan, 2%

India, 2%

Russia, 2%

Brazil, 1%
1-10

FIGURE 1.6 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2009–11a

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2012, table 3a. 

a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

U.S. Services Trade by Product Category

Exports

Business, professional, and technical services25 led U.S. cross-border services exports in 

2011, accounting for 23.4 percent of the total, followed by royalties and license fees (20.5 

percent) 26 and travel services (19.7 percent). 27 Although all U.S. services exports 

increased in 2011, export growth was uneven. Certain sectors that had growth rates of 

more than 10 percent in 2010, such as freight services and port services, recorded 

declines in 2011, to 7.0 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively. By contrast, U.S. exports of

royalties and license fees rose by 14.2 percent in 2011, up from 8.6 percent growth in 

2010. 

Two of the leading export growth sectors in 2011 were related to tourism and business 

travel in the United States. Passenger fares increased 18.7 percent to $36.7 billion, and 

travel increased 12.3 percent to $116.3 billion. Export growth in these sectors reflected 

both a rise in the number of foreign visitors and the visitors’ higher average expenditures 

in 2011.28 Other contributing factors were increased fuel prices, which raised the cost of 

 25 Business, professional, and technical services are characterized as labor-intensive services employing 

highly skilled and highly educated individuals that frequently require specialized licensing or training. 

USITC, Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2011 Annual Report, iii. 26 Payments by foreigners to U.S. owners of intellectual property, such as trademarks, computer 

software, and industrial processes. 27 Travel services comprise purchases of goods and services by U.S. persons traveling abroad (U.S. 

imports of travel services) and by foreign travelers in the United States (U.S. exports of travel services). 

These goods and services include food, lodging, recreation, gifts, entertainment, local transportation in the 

country of travel, and other items incidental to a foreign visit. 28 USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International Transactions: First Quarter of 2011,” by Sarah P. Scott, Survey of 

Current Business 91, July 2011, 66. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
1-11

passenger fares, and a fall in the value of the U.S. dollar against major foreign 

currencies.29 Other private services sectors experiencing robust export growth in 2011 

were telecommunications, which increased by 14.9 percent, and financial services, which 

increased by 9.9 percent. 

Imports

Business, professional, and technical services (27.0 percent of total imports) and travel 

services (20.0 percent) accounted for nearly half the value of U.S. cross-border services 

imports in 2011. U.S. imports in nearly all service categories increased from 2010 to 

2011, reflecting the growing U.S. economy. Exceptions included imports of insurance 

services and telecommunications services, which fell by 6.8 percent and 2.3 percent, 

respectively. The decline in U.S. imports of insurance services primarily reflected a drop 

in demand for reinsurance services30 in 2011, as U.S. insurers were reportedly more 

willing to retain more risk on their own books and thus cut back on reinsurance purchases 

from abroad. 31 U.S. economic growth contributed to an increase in U.S. imports of 

business, professional, and technical services, which rose by 17.9 percent, leading all 

U.S. private services imports in 2011. The rise in U.S. imports of passenger fares, which 

increased by 14.0 percent, was also stimulated by U.S. economic growth, as more U.S. 

citizens traveled abroad in 2011.32

U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners 

The EU was the United States’ largest export market for and foreign supplier of services 

in 2011 (table 1.2), accounting for $189.9 billion (32.3 percent) of total U.S. services 

exports and $139.1 billion (35.2 percent) of total U.S. services imports (figures 1.7 and 

1.8).33 Canada and Japan followed the EU as the second- and third-largest U.S. services 

trading partners in 2011. The U.S. trade surplus with the EU grew to $50.8 billion in 

2011 from $49.1 billion in 2010. The United States also posted large and expanding trade 

surpluses in services with most other leading trade partners, including Canada ($28.1 

billion), Japan ($22.2 billion), Mexico ($11.6 billion), and China ($13.4 billion). Among 

its leading services trade partners, the United States recorded a trade deficit only with 

India, measuring $5.3 billion in 2011. Though industry-specific data by trading partner 

are not yet available for 2011, the U.S. services trade deficit with India over the past 

several years has been driven by increased imports of computer and information services; 

in 2010, the cross-border trade deficit in that industry was $6.6 billion.34

 29 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, “Foreign Exchange Rates: G.5A Annual,” January 3, 

2012. 30 The transferring of risk between insurance companies. 

31 U.S. insurance companies were able to reduce reinsurance purchases in part because of a significant 

accumulation of capital on their books––this then allowed them to retain more risk. Industry representative, 

e-mail message to USITC staff, March 23, 2012. 32 USDOC, BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2011, 33. 33 In terms of single countries, the United Kingdom (a member of the EU) is the United States’ largest 

export market and largest import supplier of private services. 34 USDOC, BEA, “Cross-Border Trade in 2010,” October 2011, table 7.2. For more information on the 

Indian services sector, see USITC, An Overview and Examination of the Indian Services Sector, 2010. 
1-12

TABLE 1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2011,a billions of dollars 

Major trading partner U.S. exports U.S. imports Trade balance

Two-way trade 

(exports plus 

imports)

EU-27 189.9 139.1 50.8 329.1

Canada 56.0 27.9 28.1 83.8

Japan 47.0 24.8 22.2 71.9

Mexico 25.6 14.0 11.6 39.7

China 24.7 11.4 13.4 36.1

Brazil 19.9 6.9 13.0 26.8

Korea 16.8 8.4 8.4 25.2

Australia 15.7 6.1 9.6 21.7

India 11.6 16.9 –5.3 28.4

Taiwan 10.7 6.8 3.9 17.5

Singapore 10.3 4.4 5.9 14.7

All others 160.6 128.6 31.9 289.2

World 588.8 395.3 193.5 984.1

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2012, table 12. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 

a

Data are preliminary. 

FIGURE 1.7 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2011a

Total = $589 billion 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2012, table 12. 

Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100 percent. 

a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

EU, 32%

Canada,10%

Mexico, 4% Japan, 8%

China, 4%

Brazil, 3%

Korea, 3%

Australia, 3%

India, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

Singapore, 2%

All others, 27%
1-13

FIGURE 1.8 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2011a

Total = $395 billion 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2012, table 12. 

Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100 percent. 

a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

EU, 35%

Canada, 7%

Mexico, 4% India, 4% Japan, 6%

China, 3%

Korea, 2%

Brazil, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

Australia, 1%

Singapore, 1%

All others, 33% 

2-1

CHAPTER 2 

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and 

Regulations

This chapter surveys activities related to the administration of U.S. trade laws during 

2011. It covers import relief laws, laws against unfair trade practices, trade adjustment 

assistance, and tariff preference programs, including the U.S. Generalized System of 

Preferences (GSP), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Andean Trade 

Preference Act (ATPA), and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA). 

Import Relief Laws 

Safeguard Actions 

This section covers safeguard actions under provisions administered by the Commission, 

including the global safeguards provided for in Sections 201–204 of the Trade Act of 

1974, the China safeguards provided for in Section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the 

safeguards provided for in various bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) involving the 

United States. 

The Commission conducted no new safeguard investigations during 2011. Only one 

safeguard measure was in effect during 2011, with respect to imports of certain passenger 

vehicle and light truck tires from China. The President imposed the measure in 

September 2009 following receipt of an affirmative determination of market disruption 

from the Commission under Section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974. 1

 The President 

imposed additional tariffs on such tires from China for a three-year period as follows: 35 

percent ad valorem in the first year, 30 percent ad valorem in the second year, and 25 

percent ad valorem in the third year.2China, claiming that the tariffs violated the United 

States’ WTO obligations, then challenged the U.S. measure and requested the 

establishment of a WTO review panel. A panel was established, and in a report circulated 

to WTO members on December 13, 2010, the panel found that the United States did not 

fail to comply with its WTO obligations. China appealed the panel’s findings, and in a 

report circulated to WTO members on September 5, 2011, the WTO Appellate Body 

upheld the panel’s findings in all significant respects.3

 1

 USITC, Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China, July 2009. 2

 Proclamation No. 8414 of September 11, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 47861 (September 16, 2009). The higher 

tariffs were imposed effective September 26, 2009, and were in addition to the existing 4 percent ad valorem 

rate of duty on U.S. imports of such tires from China. 3

 The WTO case is described in more detail in chapter 3. 
2-2

Laws against Unfair Trade Practices 

Section 301 Investigations 

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is the principal U.S. statute for addressing unfair 

foreign practices affecting U.S. exports of goods or services.4

 Section 301 may be used to 

enforce U.S. rights under bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and also may be 

used to respond to unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory foreign governments 

practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Interested persons may petition the 

United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate foreign government policies or 

practices, or the USTR may initiate an investigation. 

If the investigation involves a trade agreement and consultations do not result in a 

mutually acceptable resolution, section 303 of the Trade Act of 1974 requires the USTR 

to use the dispute settlement procedures that are available under the subject agreement. If 

the matter is not resolved by the conclusion of the investigation, section 304 of the Trade 

Act of 1974 requires the USTR to determine whether the practices in question deny U.S. 

rights under a trade agreement, or whether they are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or 

discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. If the practices are determined to 

violate a trade agreement or to be unjustifiable, and to burden or restrict U.S. commerce, 

the USTR must take action. 5

 If the practices are determined to be unreasonable or 

discriminatory, and to burden or restrict U.S. commerce, the USTR must determine 

whether action is appropriate and, if so, what type of action to take.6

 The time period for 

making these determinations varies according to the type of practices alleged. 

During 2011, two section 301 cases were ongoing during all or part of the year, and three 

new section 301 petitions were filed. 

Section 301 Cases in 2011 

One section 301 case concerned the meat hormone directive of the European Union 

(EU).7

 In 1999, the United States imposed additional ad valorem duties of 100 percent on 

about $117 million in imports from the EU, following a successful WTO challenge of EU 

measures prohibiting imports of meat from animals that have been treated with certain 

hormones and WTO authorization to suspend concessions in that amount.8

 In January 

2009, the United States and the EU initiated a series of consultations in an effort to 

resolve the dispute through negotiation. On May 13, 2009, the United States and the EU 

announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU).9

 Under the MOU, the 

EU agreed to open a duty-free tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for beef produced without growth-

 4

 Section 301 refers to sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411–2420). 

5

 Section 301(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411(a)). 

6

 Section 301(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411(b)). 

7

 EU Meat Hormone Directive, 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/contaminants/hormones/index_en.htm (accessed March 14, 

2012).8

 64 Fed. Reg. 40638 (July 27, 1999). European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat 

Products (DS26, DS48), http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds26_e.htm. 9 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the European Commission 

Regarding the Importation of Beef From Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones 

and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to Certain Products of the European Communities (May 

13, 2009) (U.S.-EU Beef MOU). For more information on the three-phase MOU, see USITC, The Year in 

Trade 2009, 5-5. 
2-3

promoting hormones (i.e., “high quality beef”)10 in the amount of 20,000 metric tons,11

and the United States agreed to reduce the scope of the retaliation list.12 The MOU further 

provided that the parties may enter a second phase under which the EU would increase 

the TRQ to 45,000 metric tons beginning in August 2012, and the United States would 

lift the remaining additional duties.13

In a related development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in 

October 2010 that the additional duties imposed in the beef hormone dispute were 

terminated by operation of law on July 29, 2007.14 The Court so ruled because neither the 

petitioner in the meat hormone case nor any representative of the domestic beef industry 

submitted a written request for the continuation of the retaliatory duties to the USTR 

during the four-year period ending on July 29, 2007, as required by section 307(c) of the 

Trade Act of 1974.15 In accordance with the Court ruling and because the MOU was 

providing increased market access for U.S. beef producers, USTR terminated the 

imposition of the remaining additional duties in May 2011,16 earlier than the August 2012 

date provided for in the MOU. 

In the second ongoing 301 case, the United Steelworkers Union filed a section 301 

petition in September 2010 alleging that the acts, policies, and practices of the 

government of China with respect to various green technologies violate the General 

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, China’s Protocol of Accession to the 

WTO, and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 17 The 

petition covered a wide range of products and sectors, including “end products and 

upstream inputs in the wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, clean coal, 

nuclear, energy-efficient vehicles, and lighting sectors.”18 Among other allegations, the 

petition identified export restraints on critical inputs to green technology products; 

subsidies that are contingent on export performance or domestic content; violations of 

national treatment; investment restrictions that are contingent on performance 

requirements or technology transfer; and actionable domestic subsidies.19

On October 15, 2010, the USTR initiated an investigation of the acts, policies, and 

practices of China that were identified in the petition, but decided to delay the request for 

consultations with the government of China in order to verify or improve the petition.20

The delay was based on the number and diversity of the acts, policies, and practices 

covered by the petition. After further review, the USTR requested consultations with the 

government of China under the WTO dispute settlement provisions concerning a program 

known as the Special Fund for Wind Power Manufacturing, which the USTR said 

appears to provide actionable subsidies to Chinese wind power equipment 

 10 Article VI of the U.S.-EU Beef MOU defines “high quality beef.” 

11 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Art. II(1). 

12 Ibid., Art. II(3); 74 Fed. Reg. 40864 (August 13, 2009). 

13 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Arts. I(2), II(4), and IV(2). 

14 Gilda v. U.S., No. 2009-1492 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2010). 15 Ibid. 

16 76 Fed. Reg. 30987 (May 27, 2011). 

17 China’s Policies Affecting Trade and Investment in Green Technology, 301 petition filed on behalf of 

the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, AFL-CIO CLC, September 9, 2010 (hereinafter “China Green Technologies petition”). 18 China Green Technologies petition, 7. 

19 Ibid., 9. 

20 75 Fed. Reg. 64776 (October 20, 2010). 
2-4

manufacturers.21 Consultations were held in February 2011, and a few months later China 

announced that the Special Fund program would be ended.22

Three new section 301 petitions were filed during 2011. The first petition, which was 

filed by an individual, alleged that the acts, policies, and practices of the government of 

Germany regarding access to the German bar aptitude examination violate the national 

treatment obligations of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the 

United States and Germany (FCN Treaty); violate the most-favored-nation (MFN) 

obligations of the FCN Treaty; and constitute unreasonable and discriminatory treatment 

of U.S. citizens.23 The second petition, which was filed by two individuals, alleged that 

the government of the Dominican Republic expropriated property without adequate 

compensation in violation of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 

Free Trade Agreement.24 The third petition, which was filed by a private institute, alleged 

that the government of Israel misappropriated confidential information during the 

negotiation of the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement in 1984 and that the alleged 

misappropriation resulted in economic harm to U.S. industry.25 In each case, USTR 

decided not to initiate a 301 investigation for a number of reasons—either because the 

petitioner lacked standing, because too little evidence existed that the alleged actions 

burdened or restricted U.S. commerce, or because an investigation would not be effective 

in addressing the allegations. 

Special 301 

The Special 301 law26 requires that the USTR annually identify and issue a list of foreign 

countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), 

or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on IPR protection.27

Under the statute, a country denies adequate and effective IPR protection if the country 

does not allow foreign persons “to secure, exercise, and enforce rights related to patents, 

process patents, registered trademarks, copyrights and mask works.”28

The statute states that a country denies fair and equitable market access if it denies access 

to a market for a product that is protected by a copyright or related right, patent, 

trademark, mask work, trade secret, or plant breeder’s right through the use of laws and 

 21 USTR, “United States Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Consultations on China’s Subsidies for 

Wind Power Equipment Manufacturers,” December 22, 2010. See also WTO, DSB, DS419: China—

Measures Concerning Wind Power Equipment, January 6, 2011. For more information, see chapter 3 section 

on WTO dispute settlement. 22 USTR, “China Ends Wind Power Equipment Subsidies Challenged by the United States in WTO 

Dispute,” June 7, 2011. 23 76 Fed. Reg. 25401 (May 4, 2011). 

24 76 Fed. Reg. 41857 (July 15, 2011). 

25 76 Fed. Reg. 41858 (July 15, 2011). 

26 The Special 301 law is set forth in section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

2242).27 “Persons who rely on IPR protection” means persons involved in “(A) the creation, production or 

licensing of works of authorship ... that are copyrighted, or (B) the manufacture of products that are patented 

or for which there are process patents.” Section 182(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

2242(d)(1)). 28 Section 182(d)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(d)(2)). Section 901(a)(2) of 

the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (17 U.S.C. 901(a)(2)) defines “mask work” as a “series of related 

images, however fixed or encoded—(A) having or representing the predetermined, three-dimensional pattern 

of metallic, insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed from the layers of a semiconductor chip 

product; and (B) in which series the relation of the images to one another is that each image has the pattern of 

the surface of one form of the semiconductor chip product.” 
2-5

practices that violate international agreements or that constitute discriminatory nontariff 

trade barriers.29 A country may be found to deny adequate and effective IPR protection 

even if it is in compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).30

In addition, the Special 301 law directs the USTR to identify and list so-called priority 

foreign countries.31 Priority foreign countries are countries that have the most onerous or 

egregious acts, policies, or practices with the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) 

on the relevant U.S. products. Such countries must be designated as priority foreign 

countries unless they are either entering into good-faith negotiations or making 

significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and 

effective IPR protection. The identification of a country as a priority foreign country 

triggers a section 301 investigation, unless the USTR determines that the investigation 

would be detrimental to U.S. economic interests. 

Besides identifying priority foreign countries as required by statute, the USTR has 

adopted a practice of naming countries to a “watch list” or a “priority watch list” if the 

countries’ IPR laws and practices fail to provide adequate and effective IPR protection, 

but the deficiencies do not warrant identification of the countries as priority foreign 

countries. The priority watch list is for countries with significant IPR problems that 

warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation. If a country on the priority watch list 

makes progress, it may be moved to the watch list or removed from any listing. On the 

other hand, a country that fails to make progress may be moved up from the watch list to 

the priority watch list, or from the priority watch list to the list of priority foreign 

countries.

In its Special 301 review for 2011, the USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness 

of IPR protection in 77 countries.32 In conducting the review, the USTR focused on a 

wide range of issues and policy objectives relating to IPR protection and enforcement in 

these countries, including copyright piracy over the Internet and digital piracy; trademark 

counterfeiting and copyright piracy of goods, encompassing counterfeit medicines and 

healthcare products; transshipment of pirated and counterfeit goods; strengthened 

criminal and border enforcement; IPR training, resources, and prosecutions; criminal 

prosecutions and deterrent sentencing; ensuring that foreign government ministries only 

use legally authorized and properly licensed business software; adequate implementation 

of the so-called Internet Treaties under the World Intellectual Property Organization 

(WIPO); and proper implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developed and 

developing countries. 

In the 2011 Special 301 review, no countries were identified as priority foreign countries. 

The 2011 Special 301 report, however, cited 12 countries as being on the priority watch 

list: Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, 

Thailand, and Venezuela. The report highlighted the need for greater IPR protection and 

enforcement in China and for full and effective implementation of China’s WTO 

obligations, as well as U.S. concerns about “indigenous innovation” policies and related 

 29 Section 182(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(d)(3)). 

30 Section 182(d)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(d)(4)). 31 Section 182(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(a)(2)). 

32 USTR, “USTR Releases Annual Special 301 Report,” May 2, 2011; USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report, 

May 2, 2011. 
2-6

industrial policies in China that may disadvantage U.S. rightsholders.33 Although Russia 

remained on the priority watch list, the Special 301 report noted that Russia has taken 

significant steps to improve IPR protection by enacting four pieces of IPR legislation, 

which fulfill the commitments made in the 2006 Bilateral Agreement on Protection and 

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. Twenty-nine countries remained on the 

watch list. 

Since 2006, USTR has identified so-called notorious markets in the annual Special 301 

Report. In 2010, USTR decided to issue the Notorious Markets List separately.34 In 

February 2011, USTR published the first separate Notorious Markets List, which 

includes examples of both Internet and physical marketplaces that deal in infringing 

goods and help sustain global piracy and counterfeiting.35 Such markets have been the 

subject of enforcement actions or may merit further investigations for possible 

intellectual property infringement. In September 2011, USTR solicited public comments 

for the 2011 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,36 and in December 

2011, USTR issued the second separate Notorious Markets List. 37 The Notorious 

Markets List is not intended by USTR to be an exhaustive listing of all notorious markets 

around the world, but to highlight some of the most prominent examples of markets 

where pirated and counterfeit goods are reportedly available. USTR identified more than 

30 markets that deal in goods and services that infringe intellectual property rights and 

can cause economic harm to U.S. and other intellectual property rights holders. USTR 

noted that a significant number of the identified markets are reportedly located in China 

and Eastern Europe.38

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Reviews 

Antidumping Duty Investigations 

The U.S. antidumping law is contained in title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended.39 This law offers relief to U.S. industries that are affected by dumping, which is 

the sale of imported goods at less than their “fair value” (see below). The U.S. 

government provides relief by imposing a special additional duty on an underpriced 

import in order to offset its “dumping margin”—the amount by which its sale price is less 

than its fair value. Antidumping duties are imposed when (1) the USDOC, the 

administering authority, has determined that imports are being, or are likely to be, sold at 

less than fair value (LTFV) in the United States, and (2) the Commission has determined 

that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the 

 33 China’s industrial policies are described in chapter 5 of this report. Also, the USITC conducted two 

investigations on IPR in China in response to a request by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance: USITC, 

China: Intellectual Property Infringement, November 2010; USITC, China: Effects of Intellectual Property 

Infringement, May 2011. 34 75 Fed. Reg. 60854 (October 1, 2010). The USTR decision was made in coordination with the office 

of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and in accordance with the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on 

Intellectual Property Enforcement (June 2010), page 9, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/intellectualproperty/intellectualproperty_strategic_p

lan.pdf . 

35 USTR, “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Review of Notorious Markets,” February 28, 2011; 

USTR, “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” February 28, 2011. 36 76 Fed. Reg. 58854 (September 22, 2011). 

37 USTR, “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Review of Notorious Markets,” December 20, 

2011; USTR, “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” December 20, 2011. 38 USTR, “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” December 20, 2011. 

39 19 U.S.C. 1673 et seq. 
2-7

establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded by reason of such 

imports. (Such a conclusion is called an “affirmative determination.”) Most investigations 

are conducted on the basis of a petition filed with the USDOC and the Commission by or 

on behalf of a U.S. industry. The USDOC and the Commission each conduct preliminary 

and final antidumping duty investigations in making their separate determinations. 

In general, imports are considered to be sold at LTFV when the U.S. price (i.e., the 

purchase price or the exporter’s sales price, as adjusted) is less than the foreign-market 

value, which is usually the home-market price; or in certain cases, the price in a third 

country; or a constructed value, calculated as set out by statute.40 The antidumping duty is 

calculated to equal the difference between the U.S. price and the foreign-market value.41

The duty specified in an antidumping duty order reflects the weighted average dumping 

margins found by the USDOC both for specific exporters it has examined and for all 

other exporters. 42 This rate of duty will be applied to subsequent imports from the 

specified producers/exporters in the subject country, but it may be adjusted if the USDOC 

receives a request for an annual review.43

The Commission instituted 21 new preliminary antidumping investigations and 

completed 4 final investigations in 2011.44 Antidumping duties were imposed in 2011 as 

a result of affirmative Commission determinations in all four of those completed 

investigations on four products from two countries—China and Taiwan (table 2.1). 

Details on all antidumping investigations active at the Commission during 2011 are 

presented in appendix table A.5. A list of all antidumping duty orders, including 

suspension agreements,45 in effect as of the end of the year is presented in appendix table 

A.6.

Countervailing Duty Investigations 

The U.S. countervailing duty law is also set forth in title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. It provides for the levying of special additional duties to offset foreign 

subsidies on products imported into the United States.46 In general, procedures for such 

investigations are similar to those under the antidumping law. Petitions are filed with the 

USDOC (the administering authority) and with the Commission. Before a countervailing 

duty order can be issued, the USDOC must confirm that a countervailable subsidy exists 

 40 19 U.S.C. 1677b; 19 C.F.R. part 353, subpart D. 

41 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(A). 

42 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(B); 19 U.S.C. 1673d(c). 

43 19 U.S.C. 1675(a). 

44 Data reported here and in the following two sections (“Countervailing Duty Investigations” and 

“Reviews of Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders/Suspension Agreements”) reflect the 

total number of investigations. In other Commission reports these data are grouped by product because the 

same investigative team and all of the parties participate in a single grouped proceeding, and the Commission 

generally produces one report and issues one opinion containing its separate determinations for each 

investigation. 45 An antidumping investigation may be suspended if exporters accounting for substantially all of the 

imports of the merchandise under investigation agree either to eliminate the dumping or to cease exports of 

the merchandise to the United States within six months. In extraordinary circumstances, an investigation may 

be suspended if exporters agree to revise prices to completely eliminate the injurious effect of exports of the 

merchandise in question to the United States. A suspended investigation is reinstituted if LTFV sales recur. 

See 19 U.S.C. 1673c. 46 A subsidy is defined as a bounty or grant bestowed directly or indirectly by any country, dependency, 

colony, province, or other political subdivision on the manufacture, production, or export of products. See 19 

U.S.C. 1677(5) and 1677-1(a). 
2-8

TABLE 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2011a

Country Product Range of duty (percent) 

China Aluminum extrusions 32.79–33.28 

China Drill pipe and drill collars 69.32–429.95 

China Multilayered wood flooring 3.30–58.84 

Taiwan Polyvinyl alcohol 3.08 

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices. 

a

Antidumping duty orders become effective subsequent to a final determination. 

and the Commission must make an affirmative determination that a U.S. industry is 

suffering from material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation because of 

the subsidized imports. 

The Commission instituted 12 new preliminary countervailing duty investigations and 

completed 3 final investigations during 2011. Countervailing duties were imposed in 

2011 as a result of affirmative Commission determinations in all three of the completed 

investigations on three products from one country—China (table 2.2). 

Details on all countervailing duty investigations active at the Commission during 2011 

are presented in appendix table A.7, and a list of all countervailing duty orders (including 

suspension agreements)47 in effect at the end of the year is presented in appendix table 

A.8.

Reviews of Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders/Suspension Agreements 

Section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires the USDOC, if requested, to conduct 

annual reviews of outstanding antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders to 

ascertain the amount of any net subsidy or dumping margin and to determine whether 

suspension agreements are being complied with.48 Section 751(b) also authorizes the 

USDOC and the Commission, as appropriate, to review certain outstanding 

determinations and agreements after receiving information or a petition that shows 

changed circumstances. 49 In these instances, the party that is asking to have an 

antidumping duty order, countervailing duty order, or suspension agreement revoked or 

modified has the burden of persuading the USDOC and the Commission that 

circumstances have changed enough to warrant review and revocation. On the basis of 

either the USDOC’s or Commission’s review, the USDOC may revoke an antidumping 

duty or countervailing duty order in whole or in part, or may either terminate or resume a 

suspended investigation. No changed-circumstances investigations were active at the 

Commission during 2011. 

 47 A countervailing duty investigation may be suspended if the government of the subsidizing country 

or exporters accounting for substantially all of the imports of the merchandise under investigation agree to 

eliminate the subsidy, to completely offset the net subsidy, or to cease exports of the merchandise to the 

United States within six months. In extraordinary circumstances, an investigation may be suspended if the 

government of the subsidizing country or exporters agrees to completely eliminate the injurious effect of 

exports of the merchandise in question to the United States. A suspended investigation is reinstituted if 

subsidization recurs. See 19 U.S.C. 1671c. 48 19 U.S.C. 1675(a). 

49 19 U.S.C. 1675(b). 
2-9

TABLE 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2011a

Country Product Range of duty (percent) 

China Aluminum extrusions 1.50–26.73 

China Drill pipe and drill collars 18.18 

China Multilayered wood flooring 9.94–374.15 

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices. 

a

Countervailing duty orders become effective subsequent to a final determination. 

Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires both the USDOC and the Commission 

to conduct sunset reviews of outstanding orders and suspension agreements five years 

after their publication to determine whether revocation of an order or termination of a 

suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 

or a countervailable subsidy and material injury.50 During 2011, the USDOC and the 

Commission instituted 61 sunset reviews of existing antidumping duty and countervailing 

duty orders and suspension agreements,51 and the Commission completed 65 reviews. As 

a result, 53 antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders were continued for five 

more years. Appendix table A.9 shows completed reviews of antidumping duty and 

countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in 2011.52

Section 337 Investigations 

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,53 authorizes the Commission to 

investigate certain practices involving the importation of “infringing articles”—i.e., 

goods (1) that infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. patent, registered trademark, 

registered copyright, registered mask work, or registered vessel hull design; and (2) for 

which a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being established. Section 337 

makes it unlawful for any person to import such goods into the United States, to sell them 

for importation, or to sell them within the United States after they are imported. The 

Commission may launch an investigation into such practices on the basis of a complaint 

or on its own initiative.54

If the Commission determines that a violation exists, it can issue an exclusion order 

directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to exclude the subject imports 

from entry into the United States, and a cease and desist order directing the violating 

 50 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 

51 During 2011, a total of seven antidumping reviews were subsequently terminated and the outstanding 

orders/findings revoked because a domestic industry did not request that they be continued. Also, five 

antidumping duty orders/findings were revoked, which addressed ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, and the United Kingdom. 52 For detailed information on reviews instituted, as well as Commission action in all reviews, see the 

Commission’s Web site section “Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,” at http://info.usitc.gov/oinv/sunset.NSF. 53 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

54 Also unlawful under section 337 are other unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the 

importation of articles into the United States, or in the sale of imported articles, the threat or effect of which 

is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry, to prevent the establishment of an industry, or to 

restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States. Examples of such other unfair acts are 

misappropriation of trade secrets, common-law trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false 

advertising, and false designation of origin. Unfair practices that involve the importation of dumped or 

subsidized merchandise must be pursued under antidumping or countervailing duty provisions, not under 

section 337. 
2-10

parties to stop engaging in the unlawful practices. The orders enter into force unless 

disapproved for policy reasons by the USTR55 within 60 days of issuance.56

During 2011, there were 128 active section 337 investigations and ancillary proceedings, 

72 of which were instituted in 2011. Of these 72 new proceedings, 64 were new section 

337 investigations and 8 were new ancillary proceedings relating to previously concluded 

investigations. In all but 5 of the 72 new section 337 institutions in 2011, patent 

infringement was the only type of unfair act alleged. Of the remaining five investigations, 

one investigation involved only allegations of trademark infringement, another involved 

allegations of both trademark and patent infringement, and a third investigation involved 

allegations of trademark, patent, and copyright infringement. The fourth investigation 

involved allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets as well as patent infringement, 

while the fifth involved allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright 

infringement, and breach of contract. 

The Commission completed a total of 58 investigations and ancillary proceedings under 

section 337 in 2011, including 4 remand proceedings, 2 modification proceedings, 1 

bond-related proceeding, and 1 enforcement proceeding. In addition, 13 exclusion orders, 

including 7 general exclusion orders, and 28 cease and desist orders were issued during 

2011. The Commission terminated 31 investigations without determining whether there 

had been a violation. Twenty-six of these investigations were terminated on the basis of 

settlement agreements and/or consent orders. 

The section 337 investigations active in 2011 involved a broad spectrum of products. Just 

over one-half of the investigations involved telecommunications and computer 

equipment, such as cellular telephones and modems; integrated circuits, such as memory 

chips; and display devices, such as digital televisions. Approximately 10 percent of the 

investigations active during the year involved other small electronic products, including 

game systems and global positioning system (GPS) devices. Other investigations 

involved diverse consumer items, such as ink cartridges and handbags, as well as a 

variety of chemical and medical technologies. 

At the close of 2011, 70 section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending 

at the Commission. Commission activities involving section 337 actions in 2011 are 

presented in appendix table A.10. As of December 31, 2011, exclusion orders based on 

violations of section 337 were in effect for 81 investigations. Appendix table A.11 lists 

the investigations in which these exclusion orders were issued. 

 55 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). Although the statute reserves the review for the President, since 2005 this function 

has been officially delegated to USTR. 70 Fed. Reg. 43251 (July 26, 2005). 56 Section 337 investigations at the Commission are conducted before an administrative law judge in 

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. The administrative law judge 

conducts an evidentiary hearing and makes an initial determination, which is transmitted to the Commission. 

The Commission may adopt the determination by deciding not to review it, or it may choose to review it. In 

either case, if the Commission finds a violation, it must determine the appropriate remedy, the amount of any 

bond to be collected while its determination is under review by USTR, and whether public interest 

considerations preclude issuing a remedy. 
2-11

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

The United States provides trade adjustment assistance (TAA) to aid U.S. workers, 

farmers, firms, and communities adversely affected by import competition or by U.S. 

production moving to foreign countries. Key developments in the TAA programs in 2011 

were the lapse on February 12, 2011, of certain expansions made to TAA in 2009, and 

the restoration of these expansions on October 21, 2011.57 The main components of TAA 

in 2011 were TAA for Workers, TAA for Farmers, TAA for Firms, and TAA for 

Communities. These programs are summarized separately below.58

Assistance for Workers 

The TAA for Workers program is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor 

(USDOL) through the Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Geared for 

workers who have lost their jobs as a result of foreign trade, the TAA for Workers 

program offers a variety of benefits and services for eligible workers to obtain the skills, 

resources, and support they need to become reemployed.59 The most current information 

on provisions of the TAA for Workers program, the status of program funding, and 

program-related legislation, as well as detailed information on program benefits, services, 

and eligibility requirements, is available at the ETA Web site, 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/.

ETA reported that groups of workers submitted 1,671 petitions60 for TAA in fiscal year 

(FY) 2011, a decline from the 2,222 petitions filed in FY 2010.61 ETA certified 1,116 

 57 TAA was formally established by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-794) but was little 

used until the Trade Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-618) expanded program benefits and eligibility. The TAA 

programs were amended by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act (TAA Reform Act), which was 

part of the Trade Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210). The TAA Reform Act reauthorized and expanded TAA; it 

also consolidated the TAA and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) TAA programs. The 

Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act (TGAAA) of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) reauthorized and 

changed certain provisions of the TAA programs (notably through increases in eligibility, funding, 

administrative flexibility, and benefits) and created the TAA for Communities program. The TGAAA lapsed 

on February 12, 2011, and the TAA programs reverted from the expanded programs to the programs in effect 

before the TGAAA. However, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) of 2011 (Pub. L. 

112-40) restored and retroactively extended the expired provisions of the TGAAA generally through 

December 31, 2013, and made other changes to the TAA programs when it was signed into law on October 

21, 2011. USDOL, “Important Legislative Changes to the TAA Program,” http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/

(accessed December 27, 2011); USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2011, December 15, 

2011; USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 178. 58 TAA programs are funded on a fiscal year (FY) basis. Therefore, information on the TAA programs 

in this report is presented for FY 2011 (October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011), unless otherwise 

indicated. 59 The eligibility requirements for TAA and the benefits and services available are determined by the 

specific laws in effect at the time the workers file a petition for TAA benefits. USDOL, ETA, “TAA Benefits 

and Services Levels by TAA-W Number,” n.d. (accessed January 4, 2012); USDOL, ETA, “Trade 

Adjustment Assistance for Workers,” n.d. (accessed January 4, 2012); USDOL, ETA, “What Is Trade 

Adjustment Assistance?” December 22, 2011. In FY2011, the United States allocated $234 million to TAA 

benefit programs, and a further $426 million to TAA training programs. OMB, “Department of Labor––

Employment and Training Administration––Federal Funds,” Fiscal Year 2013––Budget of the U.S. 

Government––Appendix, 817. 60 For a worker to be eligible to apply for TAA, the worker must be part of a group of workers that files 

a petition with USDOL as workers adversely affected by foreign trade. In response to the filing, USDOL 

institutes an investigation to determine whether the workers meet the group eligibility requirements. If the 

worker group meets the eligibility criteria, a group certification of eligibility is issued. After a group 
2-12

petitions as eligible for TAA during FY 2011,62 and estimated that 98,515 workers were 

covered by certifications for TAA in FY 2011. Production shifting to a foreign country 

was cited as the leading basis for certification for TAA in FY 2011, accounting for 652 

certified petitions (58.4 percent of total certifications) covering 56,268 workers (57.1 

percent of total workers covered). The next leading cause was competition from 

imports—373 certified petitions (33.4 percent) covering 33,152 workers (33.7 percent). A 

total of 247 petitions for TAA, covering 19,050 workers, were denied during FY 2011.63

Assistance for Farmers 

The TAA for Farmers program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) through the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Under the program, USDA 

provides technical training and cash benefits to eligible U.S. producers of raw agricultural 

commodities and eligible fishermen whose crops or catch have been adversely affected 

by imports. 64 The most current information on provisions of the TAA for Farmers 

program, the status of program funding, and program-related legislation, along with 

detailed information on program eligibility requirements, is available at the FAS Web 

site, http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/.

Once petitions are approved for TAA, producers and fishermen have specific deadlines 

for completing online training and technical assistance, and for developing short- and 

long-term business plans. In return, eligible producers or fishermen receive cash benefits 

for generally up to 36 months, subject to certain limitations.65 The commodities approved 

for TAA for Farmers66 during FY 2011 were asparagus (petition covering production in 

 certification is issued, each worker in the group must then individually apply for TAA benefits and services. 

USDOL, ETA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance Petition Process,” February 14, 2011. 61 Data are available from USDOL, ETA, “National Petition Data.” 62 Petitions are accepted on a rolling basis throughout the year. The number of petitions certified for 

TAA in any fiscal year may not equal the total number of petitions filed in that year because of the processing 

time for petitions (which may span more than one fiscal year), and the fact that petitions may be withdrawn 

and investigations terminated. USDOL, ETA, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers: Report, December 

2010, 9. 63 Data are available from USDOL, ETA, “National Petition Data.” 64 USDA, FAS, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program,” May 13, 2010. 

65 The TAA for Farmers program was given appropriations of $90 million for each of the 2009 and 

2010 fiscal years, and $22.5 million for the period October through December 2011. Extension of the 

provisions under the TAAEA of 2011 provided appropriations of $90 million for each of the 2012 and 2013 

fiscal years, and $22.5 million for the period October through December 2013. Eligible producers or 

fishermen who develop an approved business plan, with guidance from educators working under approved 

extension programs, are entitled to receive a cash payment of up to $4,000 to carry out the initial business 

plan or develop a long-term business plan. Producers who subsequently develop approved longer-term 

business plans are entitled to receive an additional cash payment of up to $8,000 to implement their long-term 

plans. A producer may not receive more than $12,000 during the 36-month period following certification of 

the group petition. Travel and subsistence expenses related to attending training sessions may also be 

reimbursable. USDA, FAS, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers,” May 13, 2010; USDA, FAS, 

“Notice to Program Participants,” March 14, 2011; USDA, FAS, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers 

Program,” May 13, 2010. 66 A group of producers (three or more) or a commodity organization may request, on behalf of 

producers in their state or group of states, that a commodity be certified as eligible for TAA by submitting a 

petition to FAS. To be eligible, a commodity must be listed in its raw or natural state in chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 23, 24, 41, 51, or 52 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. After it accepts 

a petition, FAS conducts an investigation to determine if the commodity can be certified (approved for 

benefits) and the marketing year to which the certification applies. USDA, FAS, “Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March 2010, 1. 
2-13

California, Michigan, and Washington approved in June 2010), 67 catfish (petition 

covering production nationwide approved in June 2010),68 shrimp (petitions covering 

production in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and south Atlantic regions approved in June 

and September 2010),69 lobsters (petition covering production in the Northeast approved 

in September 2010), 70 and wild blueberries (petition covering production in Maine 

approved in September 2010).71

Assistance for Firms 

The TAA for Firms program is administered by USDOC through the Economic 

Development Administration (EDA). The program gives technical and financial 

assistance to U.S. manufacturers and service sector firms adversely affected by imports. 

The TAA for Firms program helps eligible firms develop a business recovery plan 

(“adjustment proposal”) and provides matching funds to help them expand markets, 

strengthen their operations, or otherwise increase their global competitiveness. 72 The 

most current information on provisions of the TAA for Firms program, the status of 

program funding, and program-related legislation, as well as detailed information on 

program eligibility requirements, is available at the EDA Web site, 

http://www.taacenters.org/.

EDA reported that it received 127 petitions73 for TAA in FY 2011, compared to 305 in 

FY 2010. EDA certified 149 petitions and denied 1 in FY 2011; by comparison, 330 

petitions were certified and none denied in FY 2010.74 Most (95 percent) of the petitions 

 67 Commodity petition was approved June 25, 2010; orientation sessions were scheduled between 

September 23 and December 22, 2010; all technical assistance is scheduled to be completed by June 24, 2013. 

USDA, FAS, “TAA for Farmers: Asparagus,” http://www.taaforfarmers.org/commodity/default.aspx?Id=16

(accessed April 5, 2012). 68 Commodity petition was approved June 25, 2010; orientation sessions were scheduled between 

September 23 and December 22, 2010; all technical assistance is scheduled to be completed by June 24, 2013. 

USDA, FAS, “TAA for Farmers: Catfish,” http://www.taaforfarmers.org/commodity/default.aspx?Id=17

(accessed April 5, 2012). 69 Commodity petition (application before September 24, 2010) was approved June 25, 2010; 

orientation sessions were scheduled between September 23 and December 22, 2010; all technical assistance 

is scheduled to be completed by June 24, 2013. Commodity petition (application after September 24, 2010) 

was approved September 24, 2010; orientation sessions were scheduled between September 23, 2010 and 

March 23, 2011; all technical assistance is scheduled to be completed by September 23, 2013. USDA, FAS, 

“TAA for Farmers: Shrimp,” http://www.taaforfarmers.org/commodity/default.aspx?Id=18 and 

http://www.taaforfarmers.org/commodity/default.aspx?Id=19 (accessed April 5, 2012). 70 Commodity petition was approved September 24, 2010; orientation sessions were scheduled between 

December 23, 2010 and March 23, 2011; all technical assistance is scheduled to be completed by September 

23, 2013. USDA, FAS, “TAA for Farmers: Lobsters,” 

http://www.taaforfarmers.org/commodity/default.aspx?Id=20 (accessed April 5, 2012). 71 Commodity petition was approved September 30, 2010; orientation sessions were scheduled between 

December 29, 2010 and March 29, 2011; all technical assistance is scheduled to be completed by September 

29, 2013. USDA, FAS, “TAA for Farmers: Wild Blueberries (Maine),” 

http://www.taaforfarmers.org/commodity/default.aspx?Id=21 (accessed April 5, 2012). 72 USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2011, December 2011, 2. 73 To become eligible for benefits, firms must submit a petition to USDOC through 1 of 11 national 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs). TAACs are typically sponsored by universities or nonprofit 

organizations, and are the primary point of contact for firms during the certification and adjustment processes. 

Once a petition has been approved, TAACs work with the firms’ management to identify the firm’s strengths 

and weaknesses and develop an adjustment proposal to stimulate recovery and growth. Firms generally have 

up to five years to implement an approved adjustment proposal. USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress 

on the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report, December 2011, 2–

4. 74 The number of petitions certified for TAA in any fiscal year may not total the number of petitions 

accepted in that year because petitions may be withdrawn or because the time needed to process them may 
2-14

certified for TAA in FY 2011 were for firms in the manufacturing sector; 3 percent were 

in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector; and 2 percent were in the service sector. 

Firms located in Pennsylvania received the most certifications (20 certifications, or 13.4 

percent of total certifications), followed by firms in Illinois (15, or 10.1 percent) and 

Washington (13, or 8.7 percent). EDA approved 183 adjustment proposals in FY 2011 

with a total government funding share valued at $21.6 million, down from 265 

adjustment proposals approved in FY 2010 with a government funding share valued at 

$16.4 million.75

Assistance for Communities 

The TAA Community College and Career Training (CCCT) Grant Program is 

administered by USDOL through the ETA in partnership with the U.S. Department of 

Education.76 The purpose of the grants is to help eligible U.S. institutions of higher 

education expand their capacity to provide quality education and training services to 

TAA for Workers program participants as well as other individuals to improve their 

knowledge and skills and enable them to obtain high-quality employment. The program 

was designed to ensure that every state, through its eligible institutions of higher 

education, receive at least $2.5 million in grant awards under the program. 77 On 

September 26, 2011, ETA announced that it had awarded nearly $500 million in its first 

round of grants to U.S. community colleges under the CCCT program. 78 Additional 

information on the CCCT program, including the most current information on provisions 

of the CCCT program, the status of program funding, and program-related legislation, as 

well as detailed information on program eligibility requirements, is available at the ETA 

Web site, http://www.doleta.gov/taaccct/.

Tariff Preference Programs 

Generalized System of Preferences 

The U.S. GSP program authorizes the President to grant duty-free access to the U.S. 

market for certain products that are imported from designated developing countries and 

territories.79 Certain additional products are allowed duty-free treatment when imported 

 span more than one fiscal year. USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report,

December 2011, 76. 75 Firms have two years from the date of certification to submit an adjustment proposal to EDA. 

Consequently, adjustment proposals approved in FY 2011 may represent firms that were certified for TAA 

between FY 2009 and FY 2011. USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress on the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance for Firms Program Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report, December 2011, exhibits 13 and 16. 76 The TGAAA of 2009 established TAA for Communities to assist U.S. communities that have 

experienced or were threatened by job losses resulting from international trade. This program had three 

components—the TAA for Communities Program, the Community College and Career Training Grant 

Program, and the Industry or Sector Partnership Grant Program. The TAAEA of 2011 eliminated both the 

TAA for Communities Program and the Industry or Sector Partnership Grant Program, leaving only the 

CCCT Program in operation as of October 1, 2011. 77 The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L. 111-152) signed by President Obama on 

March 30, 2010, included $2 billion over four years to fund the CCCT program. USDOL, ETA, “TAACCCT: 

Program Summary,” February 29, 2012. 78 In February 2012, ETA announced the availability of up to $500 million in its second round of 

competition for CCCT grant funds. USDOL, ETA, “Obama Administration Awards Nearly $500 Million,” 

September 26, 2011; USDOL, ETA, “TAACCCT: Program Summary,” February 29, 2012. 79 The program is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq. 
2-15

only from countries designated as least-developed beneficiary developing countries 

(LDBDCs). The President’s authority to provide duty-free treatment under the GSP 

program expired on December 31, 2010, 80 and was only renewed retroactively on 

October 21, 2011, to be effective through July 31, 2013.81 Because of the program’s 

lapse, USTR did not conduct an annual review of the GSP in 2011. 

The GSP program aims to accelerate economic growth in developing countries by 

offering unilateral tariff preferences. An underlying principle of the GSP program is that 

the creation of trade opportunities for developing countries encourages broad-based 

economic development and sustains momentum for economic reform and liberalization. 

The GSP program also allows U.S. companies to have access to intermediate products 

from beneficiary countries on generally the same terms that are available to competitors 

in other developed countries that grant similar trade preferences. 82

Countries are designated as “beneficiary developing countries” under the GSP program 

by the President, although they can lose this designation based on petitions alleging 

improper country practices, including inadequate protection of IPR or internationally 

recognized worker rights.83 The President also designates the articles that are eligible for 

duty-free treatment, but may not designate articles that he determines to be “importsensitive” in the context of the GSP. Certain articles (for example, footwear, textiles, and 

apparel) are designated by statute as “import-sensitive” and thus not eligible for duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program. The statute also provides for graduation of countries 

from the program when they become “high income” and for removal from eligibility of 

articles, or articles from certain countries, under certain conditions. The extension of the 

GSP program in 2006 provided that a competitive need limitation (CNL) waiver84 in 

effect with respect to a product for five or more years should be revoked if U.S. imports 

from a specific supplier meet certain “super-competitive” value thresholds. 85 During 

2011, this provision did not apply to countries whose 2010 trade had exceeded the 

“super-competitive” thresholds, nor did any regular CNLs result in exclusion from the 

program. Importers and exporters did not have access to the duty benefits of the GSP 

program during most of 2011, although renewal was retroactive and importers were 

allowed to request refunds of duties paid for shipments that claimed GSP status at the 

time of importation. 

Due to the program’s lapse, there were very few developments in the GSP program in 

2011: 

 80 Pub. L. 111-124. 

81 Pub. L. 112-40. Importers have 180 days to claim retroactive refunds. USCBP, Memorandum on the 

Renewal of the GSP, October 24, 2011, 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/trade_programs/international_agreements/special_trade_program

s/gsp_gen_system/mem_gsp.ctt/mem_gsp.pdf. 82 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda, March 2012, 188. 83 The list of current GSP beneficiaries can be found on the USTR’s Web site at 

http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2469. 84 Competitive need limitations are quantitative ceilings on GSP benefits for each product and 

beneficiary developing country. The GSP statute provides that a beneficiary developing country is to lose its 

GSP eligibility with respect to a product if the CNLs are exceeded and if no waiver is granted. There are two 

different measures for CNLs: when U.S. imports of a particular product from a beneficiary developing 

country during any calendar year (1) account for 50 percent or more of the value of total U.S. imports of that 

product; or (2) exceed a certain dollar value ($150 million in 2011). USTR, U.S. Generalized System of 

Preferences (GSP) Guidebook, May 2011, 11. 85 19 U.S.C. 2463(d)(4)(B)(ii). 
2-16

x Sleeping bags in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) 

9404.30.80 were removed from the GSP effective January 1, 2012. (This 

product was twice the subject of petitions for removal before the lapse in effect 

of the GSP program.)86

x On January 1, 2011, Croatia and Equatorial Guinea were removed from the list 

of GSP beneficiaries based on their high incomes. However, this change had 

already been announced in 2009 because advance notice of more than one year 

is provided before removal for high income.87

x A country practice (worker rights) petition was accepted for Georgia.88

x A review was initiated to consider adding the new country of South Sudan to 

the GSP program.89

Prior country practice petitions will continue to be reviewed during 2012, and numerous 

product petitions for additions to GSP and CNL waivers have been received for 2012. 

Duty-free imports entered under the GSP program totaled $18.5 billion in 2011, 

accounting for 5.1 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries and 0.85 

percent of total imports (table 2.3).90 India was the leading GSP beneficiary in 2011, 

followed by Thailand, Brazil, and Indonesia (appendix table A.12). In 2011, just 3 

percent of all duty-free entries under the GSP were petroleum-related products, compared 

with almost one-fourth in 2010 and nearly a third in 2009. Angola, a leading GSP 

beneficiary in 2010 and a major exporter of crude petroleum, entered most of its crude 

petroleum exports under AGOA rather than under the GSP in 2011, likely due to the long 

lapse in the GSP program. This development, as well as the graduation of Equatorial 

Guinea, another major exporter of crude petroleum, from the program resulted in the 

lowlevel of petroleum-related imports. Appendix table A.13 shows the overall sectoral 

distribution of GSP benefits, and appendix table A.14 shows the top 20 products 

imported under the GSP in 2011. 

African Growth and Opportunity Act 

AGOA was enacted in 2000 to provide unilateral preferential trade benefits to eligible 

sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries pursuing political and economic reform.91 AGOA 

provides duty-free access to the U.S. market for all GSP-eligible products and more than 

1,800 additional qualifying tariff line-item products from designated SSA countries, and 

exempts these beneficiaries from GSP CNLs.92 AGOA also provides duty-free treatment 

for certain apparel articles made in qualifying SSA countries. AGOA is scheduled to be 

in effect until September 30, 2015.93 In 2011, articles entering the United States free of 

 86 Proclamation No. 8770 of December 29, 2011, 77 Fed. Reg. 402 (January 4, 2012). 

87 Proclamation No. 8467 of December 23, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 69221 (December 30, 2009). 

88 USTR, “GSP Federal Register Notices,” 76 Fed. Reg. 67530 (November 1, 2011). 

89 USTR, “GSP Federal Register Notices,” 76 Fed. Reg. 69318 (November 8, 2011). 

90 Imports entering the United States free of duty under preference programs are given duty-free 

preference only upon an importer’s claim for each shipment, supported with documentation. 91 In addition to providing preferential access to the U.S. market for eligible SSA products, AGOA also 

includes a number of trade-facilitating provisions. For further information, see USTR, 2008 Comprehensive 

Report, May 2008, 21. USTR’s 2008 report was the last of eight annual reports required under AGOA. 

92 Should GSP lapse, as it did in 2011 until it was renewed retroactively on October 21, 2011, AGOA 

preferences remain in effect. 93 19 U.S.C. 3701 note. AGOA provisions that provide preferential treatment for certain textiles and 

apparel also expire on September 30, 2015. 19 U.S.C. 3721(f).
2-17

TABLE 2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries, 2009–11 

Item 2009 2010 2011

Total imports from GSP beneficiaries (millions of $) 241,496 303,178 365,902

 Total under GSP (millions of $) 20,259 22,554 18,539

 Imports from non-LDBDCs (millions of $)a

 13,744 17,098 18,036

 Imports from LDBDCs (millions of $)b

 6,515 5,455 503

Total under GSP (percent of total) 8.4 7.4 5.1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

 a

Non-LDBDC (least-developed beneficiary developing countries)-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty 

of “free” appears in the special rate column of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) followed by 

the symbols “A” or “A*” in parentheses. The symbol “A” indicates that all beneficiary countries are eligible for duty-free 

treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the designated provisions, and the symbol “A*” indicates that 

certain beneficiary countries, specified in general note 4(d) of the HTS, are not eligible for duty-free treatment with 

respect to any article provided for in the designated provision. 

 bLDBDC-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty “free” appears in the special rate column of the HTS 

followed by the symbol “A+” in parentheses. The symbol “A+” indicates that all LDBDCs (and only LDBDCs) are 

eligible for duty-free treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the designated provisions. 

duty under AGOA were valued at $51.9 billion, a 34.2 percent increase over 2010, and 

accounted for 73.4 percent of all imports from AGOA countries (table 2.4). This increase 

in total imports was driven primarily by an increase in the value of imports of petroleumrelated products, particularly from Nigeria and Angola; Angola was a major GSP 

beneficiary in 2010 but entered most of its crude petroleum exports under AGOA rather 

than under the GSP in 2011, probably because of the long lapse in the GSP program.94

Duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA, including under the GSP program, were valued 

at $53.8 billion in 2011, accounting for 76.1 percent of total imports from AGOA 

countries and representing an increase of 21.5 percent over 2010. 

The leading suppliers of duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA in 2011 were Nigeria (59.8 

percent of total AGOA imports), Angola (22.2 percent), Chad (5.8 percent), South Africa 

(4.8 percent), the Republic of the Congo (3.7 percent), and Gabon (0.9 percent). These 

six countries accounted for 97.2 percent of total imports by value under AGOA, the same 

as in 2010 (appendix table A.15). Of the leading imports under AGOA, petroleum-related 

products increased to $48.5 billion in 2011, up 34.8 percent by value from 2010, and 

accounted for 93.5 percent of the total value of AGOA imports in 2011 (appendix table 

A.16).95 Imports of apparel remained at approximately $0.7 billion in 2010 and 2011, but 

as a percentage of total AGOA imports by value, apparel fell from 1.9 percent in 2010 to 

1.3 percent in 2011. 

Each year, the President must consider whether SSA countries96 are, or remain, eligible 

for AGOA benefits based on specific criteria.97 At the end of 2011, a total of 40 SSA 

 94 Although petroleum products enter duty-free under GSP only for LDBDCs, the duty-free preference 

for petroleum products extends to all AGOA beneficiaries. 95 The increase in imports of petroleum and related products reflects increasing prices. Whereas 

petroleum import volumes (HS chapter 27, barrels) from the five leading AGOA petroleum suppliers 

(Nigeria, Angola, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, and Gabon) decreased by 4 percent between 2010 and 

2011, the value of these imports increased by more than 34 percent. Official statistics of the USDOC from the 

USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 13, 2012). 96 19 U.S.C. 3706 lists a total of 48 countries, or their successor political entities, as potential 

beneficiaries. 97 19 U.S.C. 3703(a). See also USTR, 2008 Comprehensive Report, May 2008, 21–22. 
2-18

TABLE 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA countries, 2009–11 

Item 2009 2010 2011

Total imports from AGOA countries (millions of $) 43,950 60,531 70,684

 Total under AGOA, including GSP (millions of $)a 33,709 44,270 53,791

 Imports under AGOA, excluding GSP (millions of $) 28,050 38,665 51,883

Total under AGOA (percent of total) 63.8 63.9 73.4

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

a

AGOA-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty “free” appears in the special rate column of the HTS 

followed by the symbol “D” in parentheses (the symbol “D” indicates that all AGOA beneficiaries are eligible for dutyfree treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the designated provisions). In addition, provisions of 

subchapters II and XIX of chapter 98 of the HTS set forth specific categories of AGOA-eligible products, under the 

terms of separate country designations enumerated in subchapter notes. 

countries were designated as eligible for AGOA benefits,98 and 27 of these countries also 

qualified for AGOA textile and apparel benefits.99 On October 25, 2011, the President 

reinstated the designation of Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Niger as AGOA beneficiary 

countries. 100 The Democratic Republic of the Congo became ineligible for AGOA 

benefits effective January 1, 2011.101

Section 105 of AGOA requires the President to establish the U.S.-SSA Trade and 

Economic Cooperation Forum (also known as the AGOA forum) through which USTR 

and the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and the Treasury host senior-level officials from 

AGOA-eligible countries to discuss trade, investment, and development relationships. 

The 10th AGOA forum, held in Lusaka, Zambia, on June 9–10, 2011, provided for 

government-to-government ministerial meetings, as well as meetings of representatives 

from the U.S. and SSA private sectors and civil societies. In addition, the African 

Women’s Entrepreneurship Program and young business leaders participated in 

conference sessions. The theme of the forum was “Enhanced Trade through Increased 

Competitiveness, Value Addition, and Deeper Regional Integration.”102

 Andean Trade Preference Act 

ATPA was enacted in 1991 to promote broad-based economic development and viable 

economic alternatives to coca cultivation and cocaine production by offering Andean 

 98 The following 40 countries are listed in general note 16 of the HTS as designated AGOA 

beneficiaries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, 

Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, 

Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, the Republic of the 

Congo, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, 

Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. USITC, HTS 2012, March 15, 2012, 186. 99 The following 27 countries are listed in U.S. Note 7 of the HTS as eligible to receive AGOA apparel 

benefits during 2011: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Ethiopia, The Gambia, 

Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Republic of Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, 

Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. USITC, 

HTS 2012, Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes, XXII, 98-II-3, U.S. Notes 7(a), March 15, 2012. 

Also, see USDOC, Office of Textiles and Apparel, n.d., “Trade Preference Programs: AGOA,” 

http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/eamain.nsf/d511529a12d016de852573930057380b/8a3cec919226ed0f85257394

0048b050?OpenDocument, (accessed July 6, 2012). 100 White House, “Presidential Proclamation—To Take Certain Actions under the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act,” October 28, 2011. 76 Fed. Reg. 67036 (October 28, 2011). 101 White House, “Presidential Proclamation—To Take Certain Actions under the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act,” December 21, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 81077 (December 27, 2010). 102 “Tenth AGOA Forum,” http://www.agoa.gov (accessed March 13, 2012). See USDOC, ITA, 

AGOA Web site, http://www.agoa.gov/agoaforum/agoa_main_003606.asp.
2-19

products broader access to the U.S. market.103 The act has had a complex history. The 

President’s authority to provide preferential treatment under ATPA first expired on 

December 4, 2001, but was renewed and expanded by the Andean Trade Promotion and 

Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), part of the Trade Act of 2002.104 Preferential treatment 

under ATPA, as amended by ATPDEA, has expired a number of times, 105 and two 

countries (Bolivia and Peru) were removed from eligibility in recent years. Peru lost its 

eligibility effective January 1, 2011, due to the implementation of the U.S.-Peru Trade 

Promotion Agreement (U.S.-Peru TPA), and Bolivia lost its eligibility on December 15, 

2008, for failing to meet ATPA’s counternarcotics cooperation criteria.106 Most recently, 

preferential treatment under ATPA expired on February 12, 2011,107 but was retroactively 

renewed until July 31, 2013, for Colombia and Ecuador, on October 21, 2011. 108

Colombia ceased to be an ATPA beneficiary when its FTA with the United States entered 

into force in 2012.109

A wide range of products was eligible for duty-free entry under ATPA as originally 

enacted. ATPDEA amended ATPA to provide duty-free treatment for certain products 

previously excluded from ATPA, including certain textiles and apparel, certain footwear, 

tuna in foil or other flexible airtight packages (not cans), crude petroleum and petroleum 

products, and watches and watch parts assembled from components originating in 

countries not eligible for normal trade relations (NTR) rates of duty. Products that 

continue to be excluded from ATPA preferential treatment include textile and apparel 

articles not otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under ATPDEA (primarily textile 

articles), certain footwear, canned tuna, rum and tafia, and above-quota imports of certain 

agricultural products subject to tariff-rate quotas (primarily sugar, beef, and dairy 

products). 

Total (dutiable and duty-free) U.S. imports from the ATPA-eligible countries (Colombia 

and Ecuador in 2009–11, and Peru in 2009–10110) were valued at $31.9 billion in 2011. 

This represented an increase of 13.2 percent from $28.2 billion in 2010 (table 2.5), 

despite the exit of Peru from ATPA in 2011. U.S. imports under ATPA fell 69.6 percent 

in 2011 to $4.4 billion, reflecting primarily the lapse of the program, but also Peru’s exit. 

 103 For a more detailed description of ATPA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC, 

Andean Trade Preference Act, September 2010. 104 Pub. L. 107-210, title XXXI. The ATPA beneficiaries are not automatically eligible for ATPDEA 

preferences. ATPDEA authorizes the President to designate any ATPA beneficiary as eligible for ATPDEA 

benefits, provided the President determines the country has satisfied certain requirements, including 

protection of IPR and internationally recognized workers’ rights. The President designated all four ATPA 

beneficiaries as ATPDEA beneficiaries on October 31, 2002. White House, “Presidential Proclamation—To 

Implement the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act,” Proclamation No. 7616, 67 Fed. Reg. 

67283 (October 31, 2002). 105 Pub. L. 109-432, sect. 7001 et seq.; Pub. L. 110-42; Pub. L. 110-191; Pub. L. 110-436; Pub. L. 111-

124, sect. 2; and Pub. L. 111-344, sect. 201. 106 Proclamation No. 8323, 73 Fed. Reg. 72677 (November 25, 2008). 107 Pub. L. 111-344, sect. 201. 108 Pub. L. 112-42, sect. 501. Importers have 180 days to claim retroactive refunds. USCBP, 

Memorandum on the Renewal of ATPA, October 24, 2011, 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/trade_programs/international_agreements/special_trade_program

s/atpa/atpdea.ctt/atpdea.pdf. 109 The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 112-42) 

became law on October 21, 2011. The agreement entered into force on May 15, 2012. Proclamation No. 8818 

of May 14, 2012, 77 Fed. Reg. 29519–23 (May 18, 2012). 110 Peru ceased to be an ATPA beneficiary country as of January 1, 2011. 
2-20

TABLE 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2009–11a

Item 2009 2010 2011

Total imports from ATPA countries (millions of $) 20,690 28,179 31,891

 Total under ATPA (millions of $) 9,714 14,411 4,380

 Imports under ATPDEA (millions of $)b 8,063 12,960 3,963

 Imports under ATPA, excluding ATPDEA (millions of $)c 1,652 1,451 417

Total under ATPA (percent of total) 47.0 51.1 13.7

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

a

Peru’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective January 1, 2011. Therefore, imports from Peru are 

included in this table only through the end of 2010. (Note that duty-free imports from Peru under ATPA were officially 

recorded after it was no longer a designated ATPA beneficiary as $4.8 million in 2011; however, 2011 imports from 

Peru are not included in this table.) 

 b

ATPDEA-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty “free” appears in the special rate column of the HTS 

followed by the symbol “J+” in parentheses. The symbol “J+” indicates that all ATPDEA beneficiary countries are 

eligible for duty-free treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the designated provisions. c

ATPA-eligible products (excluding ATPDEA-eligible products) are those for which a special duty rate appears in 

the special rate column of the HTS, followed by the symbols “J” or “J*” in parentheses. The symbol “J” indicates that 

all beneficiary countries are eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the 

designated provisions, and the symbol “J*” indicates that certain articles, specified in general note 11(d) of the HTS, 

are not eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to any article provided for in the designated provision. In 

addition, subchapter XXI of chapter 98 sets forth provisions covering specific products given duty-free eligibility under 

the ATPDEA, under the terms of separate country designations enumerated in that subchapter. 

U.S. imports under ATPA represented 13.7 percent of all imports from ATPA countries 

in 2011, compared to 51.1 percent in 2010. U.S. imports under ATPDEA accounted for 

90.5 percent of imports under ATPA in 2011 ($4.0 billion) and U.S. imports under the 

original ATPA (ATPA excluding ATPDEA) accounted for the remaining 9.5 percent, 

 valued at $417 million. As in 2010, Colombia was the largest source of U.S. imports 

under ATPA in 2011 (appendix table A.17). 

Crude petroleum and petroleum products accounted for 88.9 percent of U.S. imports 

under ATPA in 2011 and represented 4 of the top 25 U.S. imports under the program 

(appendix table A.18). Fresh cut flowers was the next-largest category of imports under 

ATPA, accounting for 6.1 percent of such imports and 5 of the 25 leading imports under 

ATPA. The share of U.S. imports under ATPA accounted for by the other 16 leading 

imports was only 2.3 percent. Together, these 25 leading imports accounted for 97.2 

percent of total U.S. imports under ATPA in 2011. 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

CBERA was enacted in 1983 as part of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) to encourage 

economic growth and development in the Caribbean Basin countries by promoting 

increased production and exports of nontraditional products through duty preferences.111

The Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) amended CBERA in 2000 and 

expanded the list of qualifying articles, for eligible countries, to include certain 

apparel.112 The CBTPA also extended North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)-

equivalent treatment (that is, rates of duty equivalent to those accorded to goods under 

the same rules of origin applicable under NAFTA) to a number of other products 

 111 For a more detailed description of CBERA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC, 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, September 2011. 112 Textiles and apparel not subject to textile agreements in 1983 (which includes only textiles and 

apparel of silk or noncotton vegetable fibers, mainly linen and ramie) are eligible for duty-free entry under 

the original CBERA provisions, which do not have an expiration date. 
2-21

previously excluded from CBERA, including certain tuna, crude petroleum and 

petroleum products, certain footwear, watches and watch parts assembled from parts 

originating in countries not eligible for NTR rates of duty, and certain handbags, luggage, 

flat goods, work gloves, and leather wearing apparel. Products that continue to be 

excluded from CBERA preferential treatment include textile and apparel products not 

otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA (mostly textile products) 

and above-quota imports of certain agricultural products subject to tariff-rate quotas 

(primarily sugar, beef, and dairy products). CBTPA preferential treatment provisions 

were extended in 2010 through September 30, 2020,113 while other parts of CBERA have 

no expiration date. In the sections that follow, the term CBERA refers to CBERA as 

amended by the CBTPA. 

In 2011, 17 countries and territories were eligible for nonexpiring CBERA preferences,114

and 8 were eligible for CBTPA preferences.115 U.S. imports under CBERA increased by 

25.1 percent, from $2.9 billion in 2010 to $3.6 billion in 2011 (table 2.6). This increase 

reflected substantial increases in 2011 in the prices of crude petroleum and petroleum 

products, methanol, and fuel ethanol, which are major imports from CBERA countries, as 

well as substantial increases in the volume of imports of petroleum products, fuel ethanol, 

and certain apparel items. U.S. imports under CBERA accounted for 24.9 percent of all 

U.S. imports from CBERA countries in 2011. Trinidad and Tobago continued as the 

leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 2011, accounting for 71.7 percent of 

total imports under CBERA. Haiti and Jamaica were also leading suppliers (appendix 

table A.19). Mineral fuels, methanol, and apparel products dominated the list of imports 

under CBERA in 2011 (appendix table A.20). Of the 25 leading products under CBERA 

in 2011, 4 were mineral fuels, which entered under CBTPA (accounting for 39.0 percent 

of total U.S. imports under CBERA in 2011); 3 were knitted apparel entered under 

CBTPA (12.5 percent); and the remaining 18 were products that qualify for benefits 

under nonexpiring CBERA provisions (48.5 percent, of which 30.3 percent of the total 

was methanol). Together, these 25 leading imports accounted for 97.3 percent of total 

U.S. imports under CBERA in 2011. 

Haiti Initiatives 

Since 2006, three laws have added special provisions to CBERA to expand and enhance 

trade benefits for Haiti and to give Haitian apparel producers more flexibility in sourcing. 

The Haitian Hemisphere Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 

 113 Certain preferential treatment provisions relating to import-sensitive textile and apparel articles from 

CBERA countries, and relating to textile and apparel articles imported under special rules for Haiti (see 

section on Haiti Initiatives below), were extended to September 30, 2020, on May 24, 2010, when the 

President signed the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-171, sect. 3. 114 Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, 

Jamaica, Montserrat, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and the British Virgin Islands. “The Netherlands Antilles, a semi-autonomous territory of the 

Netherlands comprising the islands of Curaçao, Sint Maarten (the Dutch part of the island of St. Martin), 

Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius, was dissolved on October 10, 2010. As of that date, Curaçao and Sint 

Maarten became autonomous territories of the Netherlands, and Bonaire, Saba, and St. Eustatius were placed 

under the direct administration of the Netherlands. These entities have requested eligibility to receive CBI 

benefits. The United States is reviewing these requests.” USTR, “Ninth CBERA Report,” December 31, 2011. 115 Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Panama, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. 
2-22

TABLE 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2009–11a

Item 2009 2010 2011

Total imports from CBERA countries (millions of $) 9,414 9,936 14,515

 Total under CBERA, including CBTPA (millions of $) 2,359 2,893 3,619

 Imports under CBTPA (millions of $)b 1,281 1,671 1,879

 Imports under CBERA, excluding CBTPA (millions of $)c 1,078 1,221 1,740

Total under CBERA (percent of total) 25.1 29.1 24.9

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

a

The Netherlands Antilles was dissolved on October 10, 2010. Therefore, imports from the Netherlands Antilles are 

included only through October 2010. (Note that duty-free imports from the Netherlands Antilles under CBERA were 

officially recorded after its dissolution as $206,000 in 2010 and $344,000 in 2011; however, imports from the 

Netherlands Antilles are not included in this table after it was no longer designated a beneficiary.) b

CBTPA-eligible products are those for which a special duty rate appears in the special rate column of the HTS, 

followed by the symbol “R” in parentheses. The symbol “R” indicates that all CBTPA beneficiary countries are eligible 

for special duty rate treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the designated provisions. In addition, 

subchapters II and XX of chapter 98 set forth provisions covering specific products eligible for duty-free entry, under 

separate country designations enumerated in those subchapters (and including the former CBTPA beneficiaries 

enumerated in footnote a above). c

CBERA (excluding CBTPA)-eligible products are those for which a special duty rate appears in the special rate 

column of the HTS, followed by the symbols “E” or “E*” in parentheses. The symbol “E” indicates that all beneficiary 

countries are eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the designated 

provisions, and the symbol “E*” indicates that certain articles, specified in general note 7(d) of the HTS, are not 

eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to any article provided for in the designated provision. 

(HOPE Act) 116 amended CBERA to provide expanded rules of origin for inputs to 

apparel and wire harness automotive components assembled in Haiti and imported into 

the United States. 117 Two years later, the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through 

Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II Act)118 amended the HOPE Act to 

provide additional trade preferences.119 Finally, in 2010, the President signed into law the 

Haiti Economic Lift Program of 2010 (HELP Act).120 The HELP Act expanded and 

extended existing U.S. trade preferences121 (especially duty-free treatment for certain 

qualifying apparel) for Haiti established under the CBTPA and the HOPE Act and HOPE 

II (collectively referred to as HOPE or the HOPE Acts). 

 116 Pub. L. 109-432, sect. 5001 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2006. 117 There were no imports of wire harness automotive components from Haiti in 2007, 2008, 2009, 

2010, or 2011. 118 Pub. L. 110-234, sect. 15401 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2008. 119 For more details on the programs under the HOPE Acts, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, July 

2011, 2-21 to 2-22. 120 Pub. L. 111-171, sect. 2, Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010. 121 Key provisions under the HELP Act include: (1) extension of the CBTPA and HOPE Acts through 

September 30, 2020 (from the earlier expiration of September 30, 2018); (2) provision of duty-free treatment 

for additional textile and apparel products that are wholly assembled or knit-to-shape in Haiti regardless of 

the origin of the inputs; (3) increase in the respective tariff preference levels under which certain Haitian knit 

and woven apparel products may receive duty-free treatment regardless of the origin of inputs from 70 

million to 200 million square meter equivalents; and (4) liberalization of the earned import allowance rule by 

allowing the duty-free importation of one square meter equivalent of apparel wholly assembled or knit-toshape in Haiti, regardless of the origin of the inputs, for every two square meter equivalents (previously it 

was for every three square meter equivalents) of qualifying fabric from the United States. For additional 

details on the HELP Act, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 2-21 to 2-22. 
2-23

U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from Haiti totaled $701.5 million in 2011, up more 

than one-third (35.5 percent) from $517.6 million in 2010 (table 2.7). 122 The sharp 

increase in U.S. sector imports from Haiti can be attributed in part to efforts to rebuild 

Haiti’s economy after a severe earthquake in January 2010 as well as to the additional 

trade preferences granted under the HOPE Acts and the anticipation of future benefits 

granted by the HELP Act.123 Virtually all U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti entered duty 

free under trade preference programs in 2011. 

In 2011, Haiti accounted for nearly all of U.S. imports of apparel entering under CBERA 

and CBTPA. Although most U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti entered under CBTPA 

provisions, U.S. imports of apparel entering under the HOPE Acts rose 42.5 percent, 

from $159.8 million in 2010 to $227.7 million in 2011,124 and represented one-third of 

total U.S. apparel imports that entered free of duty from Haiti. Most of the apparel 

imported from Haiti under the HOPE Acts entered under tariff preference levels that 

allow duty-free treatment for certain apparel up to established annual quotas (“restraint 

limits”). About half ($109.6 million) of these U.S. imports of apparel entered under the 

woven apparel restraint limit in 2011. Almost an equal amount ($109.2 million) of 

imports of apparel from Haiti entered under the knit apparel and value-added restraint 

limits the same year.125

The remaining U.S. imports ($8.9 million) under the HOPE Acts in 2011 entered under 

the Earned Import Allowance Program (EIAP), a special trade provision created under 

HOPE II. The HELP Act reduced the EIAP exchange ratio from 3-for-1 to 2-for-1 in an 

effort to encourage the program’s use, since no apparel from Haiti was exported to the 

United States under the original 3-for-1 program. Concerning the HELP Act provisions 

that went into effect in 2010, no U.S. imports of apparel entered under those provisions in 

2011. The lack of trade activity may be attributed to the newness of the HELP Act 

provisions.126

 122Apparel manufacturing is the single largest export and employment sector in the Haitian economy. 

Haitian apparel production remains concentrated in high-volume commodity garments that have reasonably 

predictable consumer demand and few styling changes. Cotton knit shirts and blouses, cotton underwear, and 

cotton trousers and pants dominated U.S. imports from Haiti, accounting for 69 percent, 19 percent, and 11 

percent each, respectively, of U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti in 2011. 123 Industry sources in Haiti reported that the trade preferences for Haiti’s apparel sector likely 

encouraged and contributed to an 18 percent growth in manufacturing in 2011. A U.S. government 

representative reported that the trade preferences granted under the HOPE Acts and HELP have been a 

primary, if not the sole factor in the growing interest by U.S. brands, retailers, and importers in sourcing 

apparel from Haiti and have encouraged foreign investors to develop or expand textile and apparel 

manufacturing facilities in Haiti. USDOS, U.S. Embassy, Port-au-Prince, “Haiti’s Economy Bounces Back,” 

January 12, 2012; U.S. government representative, USDOC, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), email message to USITC, February 9, 2012; U.S. apparel industry representative, telephone interview by 

USITC staff, February 13, 2012. 124 Data on trade under the HOPE Acts are from USDOC, OTEXA, “U.S. Imports under Trade 

Preference Programs.” 125 The fill rates for the woven apparel restraint limit (HTS subheading 9820.62.05), knit apparel 

restraint limit (HTS subheading 9820.61.35), and value-added restraint limits (HTS subheadings 9820.61.25 

and 9820.61.30) were 34.55 percent, 36.9 percent, and 4.79 percent respectively, for the preferential 

treatment period October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011. 126 U.S. government representative from USDOC, OTEXA, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 

1, 2012. 
2-24

TABLE 2.7 U.S. imports for consumption of apparel from Haiti, 2009–11 

Item 2009 2010 2011

Total imports from Haiti (millions of $) 513.3 517.6 701.5

 Imports under trade preference programs (millions of $) 511.9 515.7 689.1

CBERA (CBTPA) (millions of $) 374.0 355.9 461.4

 HOPE Acts (millions of $) 137.9 159.8 227.7

 HELP Act (millions of $) (a

) 0.0 0.0

 Imports under trade preference programs (percent of total) 99.7 99.6 98.3

 CBERA (CBTPA) (percent of total) 72.8 68.6 67.0

 HOPE Acts (percent of total) 26.9 31.0 33.0

 HELP Act (percent of total) (a) 0.0 0.0

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 

a

Not applicable. 
3-1

CHAPTER 3

Selected Trade Developments in the WTO, 

OECD, APEC, and ACTA

This chapter covers 2011 developments in the World Trade Organization (WTO), 

including the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations; the work programs, 

decisions, and reviews of the WTO General Council; plurilateral agreements; and dispute 

settlement. The chapter also covers activities in other multilateral groups, including the 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

(ACTA).

World Trade Organization

In 2011, negotiations remained stalled in the Doha trade talks, although participants did 

reach a number of standalone agreements by yearend. The agreements were adopted by 

ministers at their Eighth Ministerial Conference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, December 

15–17, 2011.1 During the year, the WTO General Council addressed a variety of topics, 

including work programs on electronic commerce (e-commerce) and on small economies;

waivers for trade preference programs; and the Third Global Review of Aid-for-Trade. At 

its annual meeting in December, the General Council extended an invitation to Russia to 

join the WTO which, if it joins in 2012, would end 18 years of accession negotiations. 

Pascal Lamy, WTO Director-General (D-G) as well as chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee (TNC) of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), announced at 

the December meeting that he would not seek an appointment for a third term as 

Director-General.

Doha Trade Negotiations

WTO members continued to meet in 2011 in an effort to resolve remaining differences in 

the Doha multilateral trade negotiations. In February, delegates indicated their support for 

the approach proposed by the TNC chairman to review all texts in spring 2011, followed 

by efforts to reach a comprehensive package before summer break, with the goal of a 

final deal by yearend 2011. 2 In March, as part of this review process, the D-G held 

consultations with seven key members 3 concerning remaining differences in the 

nonagricultural market-access (NAMA) sectoral negotiations. On April 21, he circulated 

all draft texts and reports to members for review––providing all participants with a firsttime overview of the entire DDA package negotiated to date—including his assessment 

that the differing views regarding the NAMA negotiations were “not bridgeable” at 

1 See section below on the ministerial conference for details concerning the decisions and agreements 

reached. 2 WTO, General Council, “Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee,” February 

22, 2011. 3 Australia, Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan, and the United States.
3-2

present.4 Following the April review, he reported his conclusion that the inability to reach 

a compromise on the issue of tariffs on industrial products “among the major players is 

effectively blocking progress in other areas,”5 leading to an impasse in negotiations that 

remained at the end of 2011.

Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture

The Committee on Agriculture continued informal consultations in 2011 aimed largely at

clarifying points concerning domestic support and market-access issues. The work 

centered around four broad areas: (1) resolving disputed items remaining in the draft 

modalities text; (2) technical development of the templates to be used to present data and 

schedule members’ commitments; (3) discussion of data requirements, and submission 

and verification of data to be annexed to the draft modalities text; and (4) consideration 

of technical ambiguity implying a need for clarification in the final text.6 Consultations 

regarding agriculture also continued during the year through the D-G’s Consultative 

Framework Mechanism on the Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton. These 

consultations focused on the proposal put forward by four African countries 7 (C-4

countries), which aimed broadly at addressing the issue of cotton in world trade and, in 

particular, the development assistance aspects of cotton. 8 According to the TNC 

chairman’s yearend account, consultations held during the year revealed that not all WTO 

members could agree to the C-4 proposal, notably to the interim measure to freeze tradedistorting support for cotton at current levels.

Negotiating Group on Market Access

In 2011, the group focused efforts on advancing working documents addressing three 

particular areas: (1) procedures to resolve nontariff barriers (officially, Procedures for the 

Facilitation of Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers, or the NAMA Horizontal Mechanism),

(2) textile labeling under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and 

(3) TBT-related transparency issues. On the subject of the NAMA Horizontal 

Mechanism, no further progress was reported during 2011 on advancing the text. On 

textile labeling, the group reached an understanding to extend the scope of textile labeling 

to cover intermediate products, and continued discussion of other issues, including 

country-of-origin matters. On the third area of TBT-related transparency, work focused 

on the existing format for notification of draft measures to the TBT Agreement. 9

Remaining transparency concerns included (1) how to identify parts of a proposed 

technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure that may deviate from relevant 

international standards; (2) how to determine who would qualify to comment on draft 

regulations, in that such authorities would be in a position to influence the development 

4 WTO, Trade Negotiation Committee, “Report by the Director-General on His Consultations,” April 

21, 2011. 5 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation,” April 29, 2011.

6 WTO, Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, “Negotiating Group on Agriculture––Report by 

the Chairman,” April 21, 2011. 7 Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mali.

8 WTO, Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, Sub-Committee on Cotton, “WTO Negotiations on 

Agriculture––Communication from the Co-Sponsors,” November 8, 2011. 9 The working texts for these three subjects can be found in WTO, Negotiating Group on Market 

Access, “Textual Report by the Chairman—Addendum,” Annex A, “Ministerial Decision on Procedures,” 

Annex B, “Understanding on the Interpretation of the Agreement,” and Annex C, “Transparency,” April 21, 

2011.
3-3

of a proposed regulation; (3) special and differential treatment for developing and leastdeveloped countries; and (4) technical assistance issues. Lastly, the TNC chair reiterated

his view that the core challenge of the tariff negotiations––the inability to resolve 

differences among key participants in the NAMA sectoral negotiations––remained 

unchanged at the end of 2011.

Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services

The services negotiations encompass four major areas: (1) market access, (2) domestic 

regulation, (3) rules in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and (4) the 

implementation of a waiver of certain obligations for the least-developed countries.10

Despite an intensification of negotiations in the first months of 2011, limited progress 

was reported in the market-access negotiations from the point reached in July 2008.11 On 

domestic regulation of services, notable progress had been achieved since 2008, although 

disagreements continued in 2011 on major and basic issues. For GATS rules, 

convergence was still lacking concerning any of the three subjects under discussion––

safeguards, government procurement, and subsidies. On preferential treatment for leastdeveloped countries, progress was achieved by the end of 2011, with members reaching 

agreement on a waiver for least-developed countries concerning services disciplines, 

which ministers adopted at their December Ministerial Council meeting.12 The waiver 

grants preferential treatment to the services and service suppliers of least-developed 

countries.

Negotiating Group on Rules

During 2011, little progress was reported in the rules negotiations. In April, the 

negotiating group chairman circulated three documents 13 to participants reflecting 

achievements reached in efforts made during late 2010 and early 2011. These documents 

covered the main areas under discussion in the rules negotiations: antidumping measures, 

countervailing duty measures, and fisheries subsidies. The first document presented a 

revised legal text relating to antidumping, noted to contain the 12 “bracketed” issues (i.e., 

involving text not yet agreed on and still under discussion) found in previous texts.14 The 

second document circulated was a report by the chairman on the negotiations on 

10 WTO, Council for Trade in Services, Special Session, “Negotiations on Trade in Services––Report,” 

April 21, 2011. 11 The market-access negotiations cover 18 services sectors: accounting services; air transport services; 

architecture, engineering, and integrated engineering services; audiovisual services; computer-related 

services; construction services; distribution services; energy services; environmental services; financial 

services; legal services; logistics and related services; maritime transport services; postal and courier services,

including express delivery; private education services; services related to agriculture; telecommunication 

services; and tourism services. 12 WTO, Council for Trade in Services, Special Session, “Preferential Treatment to Services and 

Service Suppliers,” November 29, 2011. Ministers adopted this waiver at their December 2011 Ministerial 

Council meeting (WT/L/847). 13 WTO, Negotiating Group on Rules, “Communication from the Chairman,” April 21, 2011. 14 The chairman’s communication set out these 12 issues as: (1) zeroing, (2) causation of injury, (3) 

material retardation, (4) exclusion of producers who are related to exporters or importers or who are 

themselves importers, (5) product under consideration, (6) information requests to affiliated parties, (7) 

public interest, (8) lesser duty, (9) anti-circumvention, (10) sunset reviews, (11) third-country dumping, and 

(12) special and differential treatment/technical assistance.
3-4

subsidies and countervailing measures, covering bracketed 15 and unbracketed text, 

various new proposals, 16 and the issue of transposition. A third document by the 

chairman was circulated on the negotiations on fisheries subsidies. 17 Separately, the 

chairman circulated to participants a report on progress made in the group’s review of the 

General Council decision establishing a transparency mechanism for regional trade 

agreements (RTAs). The RTA transparency mechanism has been operating on a 

provisional basis since December 2006.18

Special Session of the Council for TRIPS

The Special Session of the Council for TRIPS made efforts in 2011 to reach agreement 

on a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for 

wines and spirits. On April 20, 2011, the session chairman circulated a draft composite 

text19 for a register; for this draft, participants had put each element in the text regarding 

the structure and operation of the register into treaty-language form. Despite the issues 

that continue to divide participants––such as whether to continue with the current 

mandate strictly limited to wine and spirits or to broaden the mandate to other products––

the special session chairman said that he considered the draft composite text a “good 

basis on which to continue negotiations towards a multilateral system” now that all 

delegations had “a clearer view of each other’s positions, proposals and wordings.”20

Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment21

The special session identified four areas requiring further attention to conclude 

negotiations of all three parts of the special session’s mandate under the Doha 

Declaration, paragraph 31.22 The four remaining areas that will require members’ efforts 

to reach a draft ministerial decision on trade and the environment are (1) language for the 

preamble; (2) coverage; (3) treatment of tariffs and nontariff barriers (NTBs), including 

special and differential treatment; and (4) cross-cutting and economic development 

elements. On language for the preamble, member discussion has sought to ensure that 

negotiations under paragraph 31(iii) show progress encompassing all three areas of trade, 

15 The chairman’s communication set out four bracketed issues: (1) certain financing by loss-making 

institutions, (2) export competitiveness, (3) export credits––market benchmarks, and (4) export credits––

successor undertakings. 16 The chairman’s communication set out five new proposals: (1) export financing benchmarks for 

developing members, (2) countervail procedures, (3) tax and duty rebate schemes, (4) Annex VII graduation, 

and (5) presumption of serious prejudice. 17 The chairman’s communication set out the broad categories under discussion as follows: (1) 

prohibition and general exceptions, (2) special and differential treatment of developing members, (3) general 

disciplines (adverse effects), (4) fisheries management, (5) notification and surveillance, and (6) other issues. 18 WTO, Negotiating Group on Rules, “Negotiations on Regional Trade Agreements: Transparency 

Mechanism,” April 21, 2011. 19 WTO, Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Special Session, 

“Multilateral System––Draft Composite Text––Revision,” April 21, 2011. 20 WTO, Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Special Session, 

“Multilateral System—Report by the Chairman,” April 20, 2011. 21 WTO, Committee on Trade and Environment, Special Session, “Committee on Trade and 

Environment in Special Session,” April 21, 2011. 22 Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration calls for examination of the relation between 

existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). 

Paragraph 31(ii) considers procedures for regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and the 

relevant WTO committees, as well as mutual observer status. Paragraph 31(iii) considers the reduction and 

elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers to trade in environmental goods and services.
3-5

environment, and development for WTO members. On coverage, the chair report 

highlighted the need to settle on an approach to coverage. Presently, one coverage 

proposal identifies environmental goods on the basis of environmental projects, with the 

Committee on Trade and Environment designating criteria for such projects under six 

broad categories.23 Qualifying goods would receive specific concessions for the duration 

of a project. A second coverage proposal focuses on a request-offer process during a 

certain number of “offer rounds,” whereby each member would propose items that it 

considers environmental goods and for which it would negotiate liberalization 

commitments.

On treatment of tariffs and NTBs, all proposals tabled considered a reduction (or 

elimination) of tariffs for some products, an asymmetric tariff reduction between 

developed countries with a lesser reduction by developing country members, and an 

initial 50 percent cut with the application of the tariff reduction formula plus the 

elimination of agreed tariffs by certain set time periods. Session discussions also touched 

on reducing or eliminating NTBs on trade in environmental goods and services. 

Proposals addressing special and differential treatment for developing countries are 

considering lesser reductions, implementation delays, and other forms of flexibilities, as 

well as possible product exemptions and liberalization by developing country members 

on a lesser number of tariff lines. Cross-cutting elements largely concern environmental 

services and aspects of economic development, such as those concerning environmental 

technologies.

Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development24

In 2011, work in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) 

progressed slowly, with discussions proceeding on the CTD Monitoring Mechanism 

based on the special session chair’s most recent text, as well as on language offered by 

various members concerning the preamble for a draft final decision. The special session 

has been addressing two areas: (1) agreement-specific proposals concerning special and 

differential treatment afforded to developing and least-developed countries, and (2) the 

CTD Monitoring Mechanism to review the implementation of WTO measures providing 

such differential treatment.

Agreement-specific proposals

Under the DDA Work Program on Special and Differential Treatment, 88 agreementspecific proposals have been put forward by developing and least-developed country 

members in the CTD Special Session. Of these, 38 proposals (known as “Category II” 

proposals) have been directed for consideration to other DDA negotiating groups and 

WTO bodies with expertise in their various subjects.

The special session chairman noted that work on Category II proposals has been slow, 

due largely to the need to conclude the main body of work in the special session of which 

23 These broad categories are (1) air pollution control, (2) carbon capture and storage, (3) 

environmental technologies, (4) others, (5) renewable energies, and (6) waste management and water 

treatment. WTO, Committee on Trade and Environment, Special Session, “Compilation of Submissions 

under Paragraph 31(iii)—Revision,” January 5, 2011. 24 WTO, Committee on Trade and Development, Special Session, “Special Session of the Committee 

on Trade and Development,” April 21, 2011.
3-6

they are an integral part. By yearend 2011, members had reached agreement in principle 

toward a draft decision in 28 of the remaining 50 proposals still under consideration in 

the CTD special session, although without any formal adoptions to date. Work on 

agreement-specific proposals in the special session has focused to a large extent on six 

proposals: one on Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

(SPS Agreement); two on Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement; and three on Article 3.5 of 

the Agreement on Import Licensing.25

Monitoring mechanism

Little progress was made during 2011 on the CTD monitoring mechanism––proposed in 

2005 as a means of effectively monitoring special and differential treatment afforded 

developing and least-developed country members. Nonetheless, a proposal on informal 

“guiding principles” was put forward in 2010 by a group of ambassadors in the session in 

an effort to help move the process forward in considering the mechanism. Members have 

focused on four aspects of the mechanism: (1) scope, (2) functions, (3) operations, and 

(4) reappraisal. The session chair reported that ministers have overcome previous 

differences regarding the scope of the mechanism to broadly agree that the CTD 

monitoring mechanism should apply to all WTO special and differential provisions, 

including ministerial and General Council decisions. By yearend, the session chair 

reported that members had overcome divergent views on the function of the mechanism; 

members now support the mechanism’s use beyond a purely monitoring exercise, which 

allows the mechanism to make recommendations to other WTO bodies to initiate 

negotiations without becoming an ongoing negotiating body itself. Members reportedly 

are converging as well on the operation of the mechanism in dedicated sessions of the 

Committee on Trade and Development, where members would provide submissions on 

the operation, use, and implementation of special and differential provisions for 

discussion. Lastly, members reached general agreement that the mechanism would be 

reviewed three years after its entry into force, and thereafter as deemed necessary. The 

session chair reported that divergent views remained regarding language in the draft 

decision preamble, review procedures concerning the mechanism, and other 

recommendations regarding the mechanism.

Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation

Work in the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation (NGTF) advanced in 2011, based 

on the 11th revision of the Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text.26 NGTF meetings––

25 Article 10 of the SPS Agreement relates to special and differential treatment; Article 3 of the 

Agreement on Import Licensing relates to non-automatic import licensing. 26 WTO, Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, “Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text––Revision,” 

October 7, 2011. The October 2011 draft consolidated negotiating text contained the following articles 

(bracketed items included): Section I––Article 1. Publication and Availability of Information, Article 2. Prior 

Publication and Consultation, Article 3. Advance Rulings, Article 4. Appeal [Review] Procedures, Article 5. 

Other Measures to Enhance Impartiality, non Discrimination and Transparency, Article 6. Disciplines on 

Fees and Charges Imposed on or in Connection with Importation and Exportation, Article 7. Release and 

Clearance of Goods, Article 8. Consularization, Article 9. Border Agency Cooperation, Article 9 bis. 

[Declaration of Transshipped or in Transit Goods] [Domestic Transit], Article 10. Formalities Connected 

with Importation and Exportation, Article 11. Freedom of Transit, Article 12. [Customs Cooperation 

Mechanism for Trade Facilitation and Compliance][Customs Cooperation], Article 13. Institutional 

Arrangements, Article 14. National Committee on Trade Facilitation, Article 15. Preamble/Cross-cutting 
3-7

complemented by the topic facilitator process, whereby an individual delegation focuses 

on a single issue with other members to promote a convergence of views––have reduced 

bracketed text by one-half during the year.27 In his yearend report, the TNC chairman 

noted that NGTF meetings are set to continue in 2012, in particular to help smaller 

delegations participate more fully in the discussions.

Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body

Although the Special Session is not formally part of the DDA, negotiations take place in 

parallel to those in the Doha Round as part of the DDA’s Single Undertaking framework. 

As of April 2011,28 the special session had completed a first round of discussion of all 

issues29 found in the consolidated draft legal text, which was formulated in July 2008 and 

endorsed by participants as the basis for further work. Members were reportedly close to 

reaching an understanding in draft legal text language regarding the issue of sequencing; 

attaining a convergence of views regarding post-retaliation issues; and achieving progress 

on the topics of third-party rights and participation, time savings, and effective 

compliance. At the session, members also discussed issues surrounding flexibility and 

member control, and the chair indicated that discussions in the session are set to move on 

to issues concerning panel composition and developing-country interests, including 

special and differential treatment.

Director-General Consultations30

The D-G updated the General Council in April 2011 on his consultations on two 

implementation-related issues: (1) extension of the protection of geographical indications 

under the TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines and spirits; and (2) the relation 

between the TRIPS Agreement and the United Nations Convention on Biological 

Diversity (CBD).

Extension of the protection of geographical indications

The D-G reported that he had met with a group of members representing various 

positions,31 and that delegations continued to hold divergent views on whether or not to 

extend the protection coverage of geographical indications (GIs) to products other than 

wines and spirits. The D-G noted the discussions had clarified that, while trademark 

systems were legitimate forms of protecting GIs, any extension of GI protections would 

Matters, Section II––Special and Differential Treatment Provisions for Developing Country Members and 

Least Developed Country Members. 27 WTO, General Council, “Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee, Annex––

State of Play,” November 30, 2011. 28 WTO, Dispute Settlement Body, Special Session, “Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body––

Report,” April 21, 2011. 29 The chairman’s overview surveyed the state of play on various issues under a number of thematic 

categories, including third-party rights, panel composition, remand, mutually agreed solutions, strictly 

confidential information, sequencing, post-retaliation, transparency and amicus curiae briefs, timeframes, 

developing-country interests (including special and differential treatment), flexibility and member control, 

and effective compliance. 30 WTO, General Council, Trade Negotiations Committee, “Issues Related to the Extension––Report by 

the Director-General,” April 21, 2011. 31 Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; the EU; India; Japan; New Zealand; Norway; 

Peru; South Africa; Switzerland; the United States; the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) Group; the 

African Group; and the Least Developed Countries Group.
3-8

not mean that existing exceptions––such as generic terms and prior trademark rights––

would cease to apply. The D-G said that such discussions underscored the need to 

understand more fully what the scope of GI protection would be at a practical level when 

applied under different national systems.

Relation between the TRIPS Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological 

Diversity

The D-G reported that his discussions with a number of delegates during 2011 built upon 

their broad support for the key CBD principles of prior informed consent and equitable 

benefit-sharing. In the discussions, members agreed on the need to avoid erroneous 

patents—for example, by using databases to identify traditional knowledge and genetic 

resource subject matter that may already exist before granting new patents that would 

cover such material. They also agreed on the need to secure compliance with national 

benefit-sharing regimes, and the need to ensure that patent offices have the necessary 

information to support patents for inventions linked to genetic resources and traditional 

knowledge. As part of the discussions, members reviewed the practical implications and 

merits of current proposals involving disclosure requirements and database systems, as 

well as national approaches to enforcing prior informed consent and equitable benefitsharing, looking to achieve their objectives without creating undue burdens. Nonetheless, 

the D-G reported that members had found that none of the proposals discussed to date––

whether they addressed disclosure requirements, databases, or the use of contracts––

provided a complete solution to the issues under consideration involving common and 

separate interests of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.

General Council

Ministerial Conference

WTO members held their Eighth WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, 

December 15–17, 2011. At the conference, members approved the accessions of Russia, 

Montenegro, and Samoa to the WTO.32 Ministers discussed issues focused on three core 

themes: the importance of the multilateral trading system and the WTO; trade and 

development; and the Doha Development Agenda. 33 At their final session, ministers 

adopted a number of decisions regarding certain types of intellectual property complaints;

the work program on electronic commerce; the work program on small economies; a

transition period for least-developed countries to join the WTO TRIPS Agreement;

measures to facilitate least-developed countries’ accession to the WTO; a waiver to 

facilitate preferential treatment for trade in services and services providers from leastdeveloped countries; and the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism.34

32 WTO Web site, “Ministerial Conferences: Eighth WTO Ministerial Conference.” In addition, the 

General Council invited a fourth country, Vanuatu, to accede to the WTO in October 2011. See section below 

on accessions. 33 WTO, Ministerial Conference, “Eighth Ministerial Conference––Chairman’s Concluding Statement,” 

December 17, 2011. At the conclusion of the ministerial, the conference chairman summarized the key topics 

raised: (1) keeping markets open and resisting protectionism, (2) current global challenges, (3) dispute 

settlement, (4) accessions, (5) regional trade agreements, (6) the role of the WTO Committee on Trade and

Development, (7) food security, (8) the programs on Aid for Trade and Enhanced Integrated Framework, and 

(9) the commitment to intensify efforts to conclude the Doha Round negotiations. 34 Further information about these decisions may be found in these documents: WT/L/842––TRIPS 

Non-violation and Situation Complaints; WT/L/843––Work Programme on Electronic Commerce; 
3-9

Finally, the WTO D-G, Pascal Lamy, provided a summary of points made by ministers 

during the conference, as well as highlighted the accession of new members, the revised 

Agreement on Government Procurement, and a number of decisions taken by ministers to 

assist least-developed countries.35 In closing, the D-G urged members to continue their 

efforts to overcome the impasse in the Doha Round negotiations through the use of 

different negotiating approaches, as well as maintain the WTO as a strong and 

meaningful institution to help counter protectionism and promote continued economic 

growth worldwide.36

Work Programs, Decisions, and Reviews

In addition to its Eighth Ministerial Conference,37 the WTO General Council held five 

meetings––February 22, May 3, July 27, October 26, and November 30. At each session, 

the WTO D-G presented a formal report on the state of progress in the DDA trade 

negotiations in his capacity as chairman of the TNC. The General Council also heard 

reports during the year from the chairman of the Dedicated Session of the Committee on 

Trade and Development (CTD) regarding the Work Program on Small Economies,38 and 

the chairman of the Special Session of the CTD on the Work Program on Special and 

Differential Treatment. In July, the council heard the Report of the Joint Advisory Group 

concerning its 44th Session, co-authored by the WTO International Trade Centre and 

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

The General Council heard a number of reports during the year presented under various 

subjects mandated to the D-G. In July and November, he reported to the council on Aid 

for Trade as part of the Third Global Review.39 In November, the D-G presented the 

council with a periodic report on the development-assistance aspects of cotton. In 

November and December, he reported to the council on certain TRIPS-related complaints 

arising out of particular situations or that do not technically violate the TRIPS Agreement 

WT/L/844––Work Programme on Small Economies; WT/L/845––Transition Period for Least-Developed 

Countries under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; WT/L/846––Accession of Least-Developed Countries; 

WT/L/847––Preferential Treatment to Services and Service Suppliers of Least-Developed Countries; and 

WT/L/848––Trade Policy Review Mechanism. WTO Web site, “Ministerial Conferences: Official 

Documents of the Geneva Ministerial” (accessed January 20, 2012). 35 WTO Web site, “Ministerial Conferences: Official documents of the Geneva Ministerial” (accessed 

January 20, 2012). 36 In a press conference at the end of the meetings, D-G Lamy also said that the Eighth WTO 

Ministerial Conference would be the “last regular” ministerial that he would chair as WTO Director-General, 

indicating that he was likely to step down at the end of his current term on September 1, 2013. Inside 

Washington Publishers, “Lamy Signals Intent to Step Down,” December 17, 2011. 37 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––3 May 2011,” June 30, 2011; WTO, General Council, 

“Minutes of Meeting––27 July 2011,” September 21, 2011; WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––

26 October 2011,” December 7, 2011; WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––30 November 2011,” 

March 21, 2012; WTO Web site, “WTO: 2011 News Items, 30 November 2011”; WTO, “General Council––

Annual Report (2011),” December 9, 2011. 38 The Work Program on Small Economies was adopted by ministers in 2002 as part of the DDA as a 

standing item for the General Council, with the CTD reporting regularly to the council on developments in 

this area. 39 The Third Global Review of Aid for Trade was held July 18–19, 2011, in Geneva, Switzerland. 

Discussions were based on a joint WTO-OECD monitoring exercise designed to help providers of official 

development assistance with guidance on what aid proves most effective in increasing trade benefits for leastdeveloped countries. See OECD/WTO, Aid for Trade and LDCs, July 2011.
3-10

(so-called nonviolation complaints), as well as a report on the Work Program on Ecommerce.

During the year, the General Council considered and adopted requests for waiver 

extensions under Article IX of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) 1994, 

which allow members to provide preferential tariff and trade treatment to developing 

countries. In addition, during 2011 the council approved several waiver decisions 

concerning procedures used to certify changes to the 2007 Harmonized Commodity 

Description and Coding System (HS) and procedures to introduce HS changes to the 

member schedules of concessions found in the WTO Consolidated Tariff Schedules 

database.

In two sessions, February and November, the General Council held its biennial review of 

the U.S. exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 that permits the 

extension of provisions found in U.S. legislation which govern the use of domestic- and 

foreign-built vessels in U.S. maritime cabotage transport, commonly known as the Jones 

Act.40 At the November meeting, members concluded their final Transitional Review of 

China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO Agreement.41 The council took note of the 

various reports submitted by WTO subsidiary bodies, along with statements made by 

members, as part of the final review.

Accessions

At yearend 2011, WTO membership remained unchanged at 153 (table 3.1), although 

accession was pending for four countries––Vanuatu, Russia, Montenegro, and Samoa. On 

October 26, 2011, WTO members invited Vanuatu to accede to the WTO on the terms 

and conditions of its protocol of accession, which was open for Vanuatu’s ratification, by 

signature or otherwise, through December 31, 2011. 42 Although Vanuatu’s delegate 

notified his government’s acceptance on October 26, subject to ratification, Vanuatu did 

not ratify its protocol of accession by the end of 2011.

43

At the Ministerial Conference on December 16, 2011, ministers announced their decision 

inviting Russia to accede to the WTO on the terms and conditions set out in its protocol 

of accession. Russia’s protocol of accession was opened for acceptance, “by signature or

40 Review of the exemption is provided under paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 (WT/L/810, 

WT/L/810/Corr.1, WT/GC/W/648). Cabotage is the transport of merchandise between two locations within a 

country’s boundaries. 41 China––Transitional Review under Section 18.2 of the Protocol of Accession to the WTO Agreement 

(WT/GC/136, G/L/977, S/C/37, IP/C/60, WT/BOP/R/103, G/TBT/30). 42 WTO, “Accession of Vanuatu––Decision of 26 October 2011,” November 3, 2011. 43 WTO, “Protocol on the Accession of Vanuatu––Notification of Acceptance,” November 16, 2011.

Vanuatu was unable to complete its domestic ratification procedures by yearend 2011. On July 4, 2012, 

Vanuatu requested that the WTO General Council re-open its protocol of accession for acceptance by 

December 31, 2012. WTO, “Protocol of Accession of Vanuatu,” WT/GC/146, July 4, 2012.
3-11

TABLE 3.1 WTO membership in 2011

Albania Gambia Nicaragua

Angola Georgia Niger

Antigua and Barbuda Germany Nigeria

Argentina Ghana Norway

Armenia Greece Oman

Australia Grenada Pakistan

Austria Guatemala Panama

Bahrain Guinea Papua New Guinea

Bangladesh Guinea-Bissau Paraguay

Barbados Guyana Peru

Belgium Haiti Philippines

Belize Honduras Poland

Benin Hong Kong, China Portugal

Bolivia Hungary Qatar

Botswana Iceland Romania

Brazil India Rwanda

Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Saint Kitts and Nevis

Bulgaria Ireland Saint Lucia

Burkina Faso Israel Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Burma (Myanmar) Italy Saudi Arabia

Burundi Jamaica Senegal

Cambodia Japan Sierra Leone

Cameroon Jordan Singapore

Canada Kenya Slovakia

Cape Verde Korea, Republic of Slovenia

Central African Republic Kuwait Solomon Islands

Chad Kyrgyzstan South Africa

Chile Latvia Spain

China, Peoples Republic of Lesotho Sri Lanka

Colombia Liechtenstein Suriname

Congo, Democratic Republic of the Lithuania Swaziland

Congo, Republic of the Luxembourg Sweden

Costa Rica Macao, China Switzerland

Côte d’Ivoire Macedonia Taiwan (Chinese Taipei)a

Croatia Madagascar Tanzania

Cuba Malawi Thailand

Cyprus Malaysia Togo

Czech Republic Maldives Tonga

Denmark Mali Trinidad and Tobago

Djibouti Malta Tunisia

Dominica Mauritania Turkey

Dominican Republic Mauritius Uganda

Ecuador Mexico Ukraine

Egypt Moldova United Arab Emirates

El Salvador Mongolia United Kingdom

Estonia Morocco United States of America

EU Mozambique Uruguay

Fiji Namibia Venezuela

Finland Nepal Vietnam

France Netherlands Zambia

Gabon New Zealand Zimbabwe

Source: WTO, "Membership of the World Trade Organization—Revision" (accessed February 10, 2012).

a

In the WTO, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu is informally referred to as “Chinese 

Taipei,” also known as “Taiwan.”
3-12

otherwise, within a period of 220 days from the approval of the Protocol of Accession of 

the Russian Federation”44 (unofficially calculated as being through July 23, 2012).

At the Ministerial Conference, on December 17, 2011, ministers also announced their 

decisions inviting Montenegro and Samoa to accede to the WTO on the terms and 

conditions set out in their individual protocols of accession. Montenegro’s protocol was 

to be open for acceptance by ratification or otherwise through March 31, 2012, 45 and 

Samoa’s was to be open through June 15, 2012. 46 Not counting the above four countries 

with accessions in progress, there were 27 WTO observer governments at yearend 2011 

(table 3.2), in addition to observing international organizations. An acceding government 

becomes a WTO member 30 days following its ratification of the protocol of accession.

Selected Plurilateral Agreements

Agreement on Government Procurement

The Committee on Government Procurement met once formally during the year, on 

March 9, 2011, and informally in weeks beginning March 7, May 23, September 19, and

October 17, 2011. As of November 2011, there were 15 members who are party to the 

Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).47 Armenia became a party to the GPA 

on September 15, 2011. As of November 2011, a further nine countries are in the process 

of acceding to the agreement: Albania, China,48 Georgia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova,

44 Russian approval of its protocol of accession will provide for the exchange of its concessions and 

commitments “immediately and unconditionally” with all other WTO members granting reciprocal status. 

Under Article XIII (Non-Application of Multilateral Trade Agreements between Particular Members) of the 

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”), an existing WTO 

member (such as the United States) can decline to apply the WTO Agreement and its Annexes 1 and 2 to an 

acceding member (such as Russia) if either member so notifies the WTO Ministerial Conference before the 

terms of accession are approved by the conference. (Annex 1 contains Annex 1A, Multilateral Agreements on 

Trade in Goods; Annex 1B, the General Agreement on Trade in Services; and Annex 1C, the Agreement on 

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Annex 2 contains the Understanding on Rules and

Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.) On December 16, 2011, both the United States and Russia 

notified the WTO Ministerial Conference of their invocation of Article XIII of the WTO Agreement. WTO, 

The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations––the Legal Texts, 6–19; WTO, 

“Accession of the Russian Federation––Invocation by the United States,” December 16, 2011; WTO, 

“Accession of the Russian Federation––Invocation by the Russian Federation,” December 16, 2011; Cooper, 

Russia’s Accession to the WTO, January 30, 2012, 15–16. 45 WTO, “Accession of Montenegro––Decision of 17 December 2011,” December 17, 2011. 46 WTO, “Accession of Samoa––Decision of 17 December 2011,” December 17, 2011. 47 As of November 11, 2011, the 15 parties to the Agreement on Government Procurement were 

Armenia; Aruba; Canada; European Communities (encompassing commitments for the EU-27 member 

states); Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Korea; Liechtenstein; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; 

Taiwan; and the United States. The committee had 22 observers: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, 

Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Georgia, India, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, New 

Zealand, Oman, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Ukraine. WTO, “Report (2011) of the 

Committee on Government Procurement,” November 16, 2011. 48 China applied for accession to the GPA on December 28, 2007. China submitted its initial offer on 

January 7, 2008. Written requests were circulated for improvements in China’s offer during 2008, 2009, and 

2010. China submitted its revised offer on July 9, 2010. Requests were again circulated for improvements in 

China’s revised offer. WTO, “Report (2011) of the Committee on Government Procurement,” GPA/110, 

November 16, 2011, 3–4. China submitted its second revised offer on November 30, 2011, which included 

coverage of sub-central entities in three major municipalities and two provinces, as well as coverage of two 

new service sectors. Inside Washington Publishers, “China GPA Offer Covers Some Sub-Central Entities,” 

December 9, 2011.
3-13

TABLE 3.2 WTO observers in 2011

Afghanistan Equatorial Guinea São Tomé and Príncipe

Algeria Ethiopia Serbia

Andorra Iran Seychelles

Azerbaijan Iraq Sudan

Bahamas Kazakhstan Syria

Belarus Laos Tajikistan

Bhutan Lebanon Uzbekistan

Bosnia and Herzegovina Liberia Vatican (Holy See)

Comoros Libya Yemen

Source: WTO, “Members and Observers” (accessed February 28, 2012).

Note: At the end of 2011, four other observers were pending accession to the WTO: Montenegro, Russia, Samoa, 

and Vanuatu.

Oman, Panama, and Ukraine. In addition, four WTO members have commitments in their 

WTO protocols of accession to become a party to the GPA: Croatia, Macedonia (Former 

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Mongolia, and Saudi Arabia, although the committee 

has noted that several of these commitments have been outstanding for some time. Russia 

also has a commitment in its WTO protocol of accession to become a party to the GPA 

once it has acceded to the WTO.

Renegotiation of the agreement

At the Ministerial Conference, the chairman of the Committee on Government 

Procurement announced the agreement in principle to a revised GPA, encompassing both 

text and coverage, as well as various related decisions. Negotiations began in 1997 under 

Article XXIV:7 to improve the agreement, eliminate discriminatory measures and 

practices, and extend the agreement’s coverage among all parties. By 2004, modalities 

for the coverage49 negotiations had been adopted by the parties. By 2006, the parties had 

reached provisional agreement on a revised text for Articles I through XXI. By 2010, 

initial offers on coverage had been submitted by all parties, along with a number of 

revised offers.50

At the December 2011 meeting, the parties presented the revised text as well as enabling 

decisions, such as a protocol to amend the agreement. They also presented decisions 

concerning work programs on small and medium-sized enterprises, collection of 

statistical data, sustainable procurement, exclusions and restrictions in parties’ annexes, 

and safety standards in international procurement. The parties to the agreement directed 

their officials to complete final verification and legal review of the revised text and 

decisions to allow adoption of the revised GPA in 2012.51

49 The GPA applies to entities covered under the agreement that issue procurement contracts for goods

at the central government level, subcentral government level, and other levels of government––such as 

municipalities or regulated authorities––as well as to covered entities issuing procurement contracts for 

services and, separately, for construction services. 50 WTO, “Report (2011) of the Committee on Government Procurement,” November 16, 2011, 9–10. 51 WTO, Committee on Government Procurement, “Ministerial-Level Meeting of the Committee on 

Government Procurement,” December 16, 2011. The revised GPA was adopted on March 30, 2012. USTR, 

“United States Welcomes Formal Adoption of GPA Revision,” March 30, 2012.
3-14

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aviation

The Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft held one regular meeting, on November 11, 

2011. In addition to selecting a new chairman, the committee continued to discuss work 

on the revision of the Product Coverage Annex (PCA) of the 1979 Agreement on Trade 

in Civil Aircraft, so as to bring it into conformity with 2007 HS nomenclature.52 The 

chair reported that informal exchanges between signatories during the year had resolved a 

number of outstanding differences concerning subheadings in the annex. He suggested 

that, depending on the outcome of informal consultations that he would hold with 

signatories, the committee could be in a position to prepare a final revised PCA in the 

first half of 2012 for subsequent adoption. At the end of 2011, membership remained 

unchanged at 31 signatories. In addition, there were 23 WTO members and one nonWTO member (Russia) as observers in the committee.53

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products

The Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology 

Products (typically referred to as the “Information Technology Agreement” or ITA) 

reported 46 participants as of May 12, 2011. 54 These participants cover roughly 97 

percent of world trade in information technology (IT) products. The committee held two 

formal meetings in 2011, on May 24 and October 24.55

During the year, the committee reviewed the implementation status of the Ministerial 

Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products, reporting that most 

participants had formally modified their WTO schedules as required by their ITA 

commitments. The committee noted that 24 of its participants have responded to date in 

the effort to draft a list of conformity assessment procedures in use by ITA participants 

regarding electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and electromagnetic interference (EMI):

the EMC/EMI Pilot Program. The committee continued deliberations on its Work 

Program on Nontariff Measures affecting IT products. The committee also continued to 

review divergences in how ITA participants classify IT products, with the chairman 

52 WTO, “Report (2011) of the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft,” November 16, 2011. 53 As of November 11, 2011, the 31 signatories to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft were 

Albania; Canada; Egypt; the EU; Georgia; Japan; Macao, China; Norway; Switzerland; Taiwan; and the 

United States. The following EU member states are signatories to the agreement in their own right: Austria, 

Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. WTO, 

Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft, “Minutes of the Meeting Held on 11 November 2011,” November 14, 

2011. 54 As of May 12, 2011, the 46 participants to the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information 

Technology Products––as implemented through the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 

Information Technology Products––were Albania; Australia; Bahrain; Canada; China; Costa Rica; Croatia; 

Dominican Republic; Egypt; El Salvador; the EU (encompassing commitments for the EU-27 member states); 

Georgia; Guatemala; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Jordan; Korea; 

Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Macao, China; Malaysia; Mauritius; Moldova; Morocco; New Zealand; Nicaragua; 

Norway; Oman; Panama; Peru; Philippines; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Switzerland (the customs union of 

Switzerland and Liechtenstein); Taiwan; Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; the United Arab Emirates; the United 

States; and Vietnam. WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology 

Products, “Status of Implementation––Note by the Secretariat––Revision,” October 10, 2011. 55 WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, 

“Minutes of the Meeting of 24 May 2011,” September 12, 2011; WTO, Committee of Participants on the 

Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, “Minutes of the Meeting of 24 October 2011,” 

December 19, 2011, respectively.
3-15

suggesting consultations with participants in 2012 to further a draft decision on the 

matter. The participants exchanged views on proposals presented. At the October 

meeting, Russia stated its intention to join the ITA. Finally, the participants agreed to 

organize a symposium in 2012 in commemoration of the upcoming 15th anniversary of 

the ITA.

Dispute Settlement Body

This section focuses on complaints filed before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body 

(DSB) and on panel and Appellate Body findings and recommendations adopted under 

the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) during calendar year 2011 that

involve the United States.56 Appendix table A.21 shows developments during 2011 in the 

WTO dispute settlement proceedings in which the United States was either a complainant 

or respondent. Box 3.1 provides an overview of the WTO dispute settlement process. The

summaries in this section are intended to identify key issues raised in the complaint, note 

key procedural events as the dispute moves forward, and indicate the panel or Appellate

Body ruling. The summaries should not be regarded as comprehensive or as reflecting a 

U.S. government interpretation of the issues raised or addressed in the dispute or in a 

panel or Appellate Body report. The summaries are based entirely on information in 

publicly available documents, including summaries published online by the WTO and 

news releases issued by U.S. government agencies.

The panels active in disputes involving the United States at the start of 2011, either as a 

complainant or respondent, all circulated reports during 2011. However, proceedings 

were still underway in a number of these disputes, since either the complaining or 

respondent party, or both, had appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretation to 

the Appellate Body. Two of the longest-running disputes, both of which date back to 

2005 and involve complaints made by the United States and the European Communities 

(EC)57 about each other’s measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft, moved closer to 

conclusion. In dispute DS316, European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in 

Large Civil Aircraft, in which the United States alleged that the EC and its member states 

provided subsidies to Airbus companies, the Appellate Body circulated its report to 

members in May 2011, and the report and modified panel report were adopted by the 

DSB on June 1, 2011. The panel reviewing the EC’s complaint about alleged U.S. 

subsidies that benefited Boeing circulated its report on March 31, 2011 (DS353, United 

States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—Second Complaint). The panel 

decision in that dispute was on appeal to the Appellate Body at the end of 2011. These 

cases are described in more detail below.

There were also developments in several disputes in the post-panel, post-Appellate Body 

phase relating to arbitration and efforts to take countermeasures. For example, in DS316, 

European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, the EU on

56 For additional information on the WTO dispute settlement process, WTO Dispute Settlement 

Understanding, and individual dispute cases, see the WTO Web site, “Dispute Settlement” gateway at 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm. 57 The term “European Communities” (EC) is used rather than “EU” in this report’s WTO dispute 

settlement section if the source document WTO online summary uses “EC.”
3-16

BOX 3.1 Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedures

The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) establishes a framework for the resolution of disputes that arise 

between members under the WTO agreements.a Under the DSU, a member may file a complaint with the WTO Dispute 

Settlement Body (DSB). After filing, the member must first seek to resolve the dispute through consultations with the 

named respondent party.b If the parties fail to resolve the dispute through consultations, the complaining party may ask 

the DSB to establish a panel to review the matters raised by the complaint and make findings and recommendations.c

Either party may appeal issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel to the 

WTO’s Appellate Body.d

The findings and recommendations of the Appellate Body and of the panel (as modified by the Appellate Body) are then 

adopted by the DSB unless there is a consensus by the members to reject the ruling. While the guidelines suggest that 

panels should complete their proceedings in six months, and the Appellate Body should complete its review in 60 days, 

these periods are often extended.

Once the panel report or the Appellate Body report is adopted, the party concerned must notify the DSB of its intentions 

with respect to implementation of adopted recommendations.e If it is impracticable to comply immediately, the party 

concerned is given a reasonable period of time to comply, with the time to be decided either through agreement of the 

parties and approval by the DSB, or through arbitration. Further provisions set out rules for compensation or the 

suspension of concessions in the event the respondent fails to implement the recommendations.f Within a specified 

timeframe, parties can enter into negotiations to agree on mutually acceptable compensation. Should the parties fail to 

reach agreement, a party to the dispute may request the DSB’s authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations 

to the other party concerned. Disagreements over the proposed level of suspension may be referred to arbitration.

a WTO,“Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,” 1995

b WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, Article 4.

c

WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, Article 6.

d WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, Article 17.6.

e WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, Article 21.3.

f

WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, Article 22.

June 17, 2011, informed the DSB that it intended to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings, and on December 19, 2011, the EU informed the DSB 

that it had done so. However, the United States after reviewing the EU’s compliance 

report, was of the view that the EU had not taken the steps needed to bring its measures 

into compliance with the DBS’s recommendation and rulings; on December 9, 2011, the 

United States requested consultations with the EU under Article 21.5 of the DSU and 

authorization to take countermeasures under Article 22 of the DSU and Article 7.9 of the 

Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). At the DSB meeting of 

December 22, 2011, the EU objected to the level of suspension of concessions or other 

obligations proposed by the United States. The EU asked the DSB to refer the matter to 

arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, and the DSB did so.58

58 WTO, DS316, European Communities––Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, online 

summary. See also USTR, “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk in Response to EU 

Compliance Offer,” December 1, 2012; USTR, “The United States Challenges EU Non-Compliance in WTO 

Airbus Ruling,” December 9, 2011.
3-17

New Requests for Consultations and New Panels Established 

During 2011, WTO members filed eight new requests for WTO dispute settlement 

consultations, compared with 17 requests in 2010, 14 in 2009, and 19 in 2008. The 

United States was either the complainant or named respondent in four of the eight 

requests. Seven new dispute settlement panels were established in 2011(table 3.3),

including two at the request of the United States against China and one by China against 

the United States. This compares with seven panels established in 2010, ten in 2009, and 

five in 2008. 

Requests for consultations filed during 2011 in which the United States was the 

complaining party or named respondent

In the eight requests for dispute settlement consultations filed during 2011, the United 

States was the complaining party in one complaint, which involved Chinese 

countervailing duty and antidumping duty measures on U.S. broiler products; at the 

request of the United States, a panel was established in that dispute in early 2012. 59

The United States was the named respondent in three disputes—one filed by the Republic 

of Korea (Korea) (U.S. antidumping measures on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 

products from Korea), one filed by China (U.S. antidumping measures on shrimp and 

diamond sawblades), and one filed by the EU (U.S. antidumping measures on imports of 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy). All three involved the U.S. application 

of “zeroing methodology” 60 in calculating antidumping duty margins. A panel was 

requested and established during 2011 in only one of the disputes, the one brought by 

China. 61 Korea requested establishment of a panel and then withdrew the request in the 

dispute it brought. 62 As of the end of 2011, the EU had not requested establishment of a 

panel in the third dispute. 63

Panels established during 2011 at the request of the United States

As indicated in table 3.3, during 2011 the DSB established two panels at the request of 

the United States, one to consider a U.S. complaint about certain measures by China

affecting electronic payment services, and a second to consider a U.S. complaint about

59 WTO, DSB, DS427: China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products 

from the United States, online summary. A panel was established on January 20, 2012. See also USTR, 

“United States Files WTO Case against China,” September 20, 2011; USTR, “To Protect American Jobs, 

United States Announces Next Step,” December 8, 2011. 60 Prior to 2006, USDOC engaged in a practice called “zeroing,” in which it treated non-dumped 

transactions as having a zero margin for purposes of computing a weighted average dumping margin for a 

class or kind of subject merchandise. USDOC has changed this practice in response to adverse rulings from 

the WTO. Under the revised practice, USDOC uses the non-dumped transactions as an offset to dumped 

transactions. 61 WTO, DSB, DS422: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades 

from China, online summary. China filed its request for consultations on February 28, 2011. See the section 

below on panels established during 2011 for a further description of the issues raised and the procedural 

history. 62 WTO, DSB, DS420: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from Korea, online summary. 63 WTO, DSB, DS424:United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Italy, online summary.
3-18

TABLE 3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2011

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name Panel established

DS369

DS400

DS401

Canada

Canada

Norway

European 

Communities

European Communities—Measures 

Prohibiting the Importation and 

Marketing of Seal Products

March 25, 2011 

(Canada) and

April 21, 2011 

(Norway); panels 

consolidated.

DS412 Japan Canada Canada—Certain Measures Affecting 

the Renewable Energy Generation 

Sector

July 20, 2011

DS413 United States China China—Certain Measures Affecting 

Electronic Payment Services

March 25, 2011

DS414 United States China China—Countervailing and AntiDumping Duties on Grain Oriented FlatRolled Electrical Steel from the United 

States

March 25, 2011

DS421 Ukraine Moldova Moldova—Measures Affecting the 

Importation and Internal Sale of Goods 

(Environmental Charge)

June 17, 2011

DS422 China United States United States—Anti-Dumping Measures 

on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades 

from China

Oct. 25, 2011

DS423 Moldova Ukraine Ukraine—Taxes on Distilled Spirits July 20, 2011

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed March 

15, 2012).

countervailing duties and antidumping duties imposed by China on imports of grainoriented flat-rolled electrical steel from the United States. The issues raised and the 

procedural histories of the two disputes are summarized below.

China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services (DS413). In this 

dispute, filed in September 2010, the United States alleged that China appears to be 

acting inconsistently with its obligations under Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS in 

restrictions and requirements pertaining to electronic payment services for payment card 

transactions and the suppliers of those services. The United States alleged that China 

permits only a Chinese entity (China Union Pay) to supply electronic payment services 

for payment card transactions denominated and paid in renminbi in China; that China 

requires all payment card processing devices to be compatible with that entity’s system, 

and requires that payment cards bear that company’s logo; and that the Chinese entity has 

guaranteed access to all merchants in China that accept payment cards, while services 

suppliers of other WTO members must negotiate for access to merchants. After 

consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States asked that a panel be 
3-19

established. A panel was established on March 25, 2011, and composed on July 4, 2011. 

The panel expects to issue its report to the parties by May 2012.64

China—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled 

Electrical Steel from the United States (DS414). In this dispute, filed in September 

2010, the United States alleged that China acted inconsistently with its obligations under 

certain articles of the SCM Agreement and the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI 

of the GATT 1994 in the imposition of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on 

grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel from the United States. The U.S. subsidies that 

China determined to confer a benefit are the “Buy America” provisions of the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and also state government procurement laws. 

After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States asked that a panel be 

established; the panel was established on March 25, 2011, and composed on May 10,

2011. The panel circulated its report to WTO members on June 15, 2012.65

Panels established during 2011 in which the United States was the named respondent

During 2011, the DSB established one panel in which the United States was the named 

respondent. As of the end of 2011, the panel proceeding was still pending in this dispute.

United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from 

China (DS422). In this dispute, China requested consultations in February 2011 and July 

2011, respectively, with respect to U.S. use of zeroing in the original investigation and 

several administrative reviews in calculating dumping margins on imports of shrimp from 

China and with regard to the U.S. zeroing practice in calculating dumping margins on 

imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China. China asserted that the U.S. 

zeroing practices are inconsistent with U.S. obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994 

and the Antidumping Agreement. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, China 

asked that a panel be established. A panel was established on October 25, 2011, and the 

panel was composed on December 21, 2011. The matter was still pending at the end of 

2011.66

Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or Adopted during 2011 That 

Involve the United States

During 2011, the DSB adopted panel and/or Appellate Body reports in original disputes67

in six cases in which the United States was the complainant or a respondent (table 3.4).

64 WTO, DSB, DS413: China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services, online 

summary. See also USTR, “USTR Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Panels in Two Cases against China,” 

February 11, 2011. As of July 1, 2012, the panel had not issued its report. 65 WTO, DSB, DS414: China—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented FlatRolled Electrical Steel from the United States, online summary. See also USTR, “USTR Requests WTO 

Dispute Settlements Panels,” February 11, 2011. 66 WTO, DSB, DS422: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades

from China, online summary. See also USTR, “USTR Statement Regarding China’s Decision,” February 28, 

2011, in which the USTR expressed disappointment in China’s decision to request consultations in light of a 

U.S. Department of Commerce proposal in December 2011 to end zeroing in administrative reviews, the core 

issue on which China requested consultations. 67 As opposed to panel and Appellate Body reports issued in subsequent compliance proceedings.
3-20

TABLE 3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports circulated or adopted in 2011 in which 

the United States was a party

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name

Date of report 

circulation or adoption

DS316 United States European 

Communities

European Communities—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft

AB report adopted 

(June 1, 2011).

DS353 European 

Communities

United States United States—Measures Affecting 

Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—Second 

Complaint

Panel report 

circulated (Mar. 31, 

2011).

Panel report appealed 

(Apr. 1, 2011: 

European 

Communities; Apr. 28, 

2011: United States).

DS379 China United States United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping 

and Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Products from China

AB report adopted 

(Mar. 25, 2011).

DS381 Mexico United States United States—Measures Concerning 

the Importation, Marketing and Sale of 

Tuna and Tuna Products

Panel report 

circulated (Sept. 15, 

2011).

Panel report appealed 

(Jan. 25, 2012)

DS382 Brazil United States United States—Anti-Dumping 

Administrative Reviews and Other 

Measures Related to Imports of Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil 

Panel report adopted 

(June 17, 2011).

DS384, 

DS386

Canada, Mexico United States United States—Certain Country of 

Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements

Panel report 

circulated (Nov. 18, 

2011).

DS394 United States China China—Measures Related to the 

Exportation of Various Raw Materials

AB report adopted 

(Feb. 22, 2012).

DS399 China United States United States—Measures Affecting 

Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle 

and Light Truck Tyres from China

AB report adopted 

(Oct. 5, 2011).

DS402 Korea United States United States—Use of Zeroing in AntiDumping Measures Involving Products 

from Korea

Panel report adopted 

(Feb. 24, 2011).

DS403 United States Philippines Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits AB report adopted 

(Jan. 20, 2012).

DS404 Vietnam United States United States—Anti-Dumping Measures 

on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam

Panel report adopted 

(Sept. 2, 2011).

DS406 Indonesia United States United States—Measures Affecting the 

Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes

Panel report 

circulated (Sept. 2, 

2011).

Panel report appealed 

(Jan. 5, 2012).

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed March 

20, 2012).
3-21

At yearend 2011, panel reports issued during 2011 in six other disputes in which the 

United States was the complainant or a respondent were either pending possible appeal or 

under appeal before the Appellate Body, or were pending adoption (along with the 

Appellate Body report) by the DSB.

Reports in which the United States was the complainant

European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 

(DS316). In this dispute, the United States challenged certain measures by the EC and the 

member states that provide subsidies to Airbus companies that are inconsistent with

obligations under the SCM Agreement and GATT 1994. The measures at issue included 

over 300 instances of subsidization, including measures relating to financing for the 

design and development of products; grants and government-provided goods and services 

related to manufacturing sites; loans on preferential terms; assumption and forgiveness of 

debt; and various other measures relating to the entire family of Airbus products (A300 

through the A380). A panel was established on July 20, 2005, and composed on October 

17, 2005, but completion of a panel report was delayed numerous times due to 

substantive and procedural complexities.

A panel report was circulated on June 30, 2010. The panel found that many of the alleged 

subsidies, including certain export measures, loans, grants related to manufacturing sites, 

an equity interest in Airbus, and capital contributions, constituted specific subsidies. The 

panel concluded that Airbus would not have been able to bring to the market the large 

civil aircraft (LCA) it launched at the time it did but for the subsidies it received from the 

EC and the governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The panel 

concluded that the United States had established that the effect of the subsidies was the 

displacement of U.S. LCA exports to the European market, the displacement of U.S. 

LCA exports in Australia, Brazil, China, Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and Taiwan, the 

likely displacement of U.S. LCA exports in India, and significant lost sales in the same 

market. The panel found that the United States had not established significant price 

undercutting, significant price suppression, and significant price depression, and had not 

established that the EC and certain EC member states caused or threatened to cause injury 

to the U.S. domestic industry. The panel recommended that the subsidizing member 

withdraw the prohibited subsidies and/or take appropriate steps to remove the adverse 

effects of the subsidies.

On July 21, 2010, the EU appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations of the 

panel to the Appellate Body. On August 19, 2010, the United States appealed certain 

issues of law and legal interpretations. The Appellate Body circulated its report to 

members on May 18, 2011. The Appellate Body upheld the panel’s finding that certain 

subsidies provided by the EU and certain member state governments are incompatible 

with Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement because they have caused serious prejudice to 

the interests of the United States. The principal subsidies covered by the ruling included 

financing arrangements (known as “Launch Aid” or “Member state financing”) in the 

amount of $14.9 billion provided by France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom

for the development of the A300, A310, A320, A330/A340, A330-200, A340-500/600, 

and A380 LCA projects. The ruling also covered certain equity infusions provided by the 

French and German governments to companies that are part of the Airbus consortium, 

certain infrastructure measures provided to Airbus by the German government, and 
3-22

certain grants provided at the national and/or regional level by the German and Spanish 

governments.

The Appellate Body found that the effect of the subsidies was to displace exports of 

Boeing single-aisle and twin-aisle LCA from the EU, Chinese, and Korean markets and 

Boeing single-aisle LCA from the Australian market. The Appellate Body also confirmed 

the panel’s determination that the subsidies caused Boeing to lose sales of LCA in the 

campaigns involving the A320 (Air Asia, Air Berlin, Czech Airlines, and EasyJet), A340 

(Iberia, South African Airways, and Thai Airways), and A380 (Emirates, Qantas, and 

Singapore Airlines) aircraft. However, for different reasons, the Appellate Body excluded 

certain measures from the scope of the finding of serious prejudice, including the 1998 

transfer of an interest in Dassault, certain special-purpose industrial sites and associated 

facilities, various research and technology development measures, and certain other 

grants by the French or German government or by local authorities. The Appellate Body 

also, among other things, reversed certain panel findings related to financing provided by 

Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom to develop the A380.

The DSB adopted the report of the Appellate Body and the panel (as modified by the 

Appellate Body) on June 1, 2011.68

China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (DS394). In

this dispute, filed in June 2009, the United States alleged that China imposed restraints on 

exports of various forms of raw materials in violation of Articles VIII, X, and XI of the 

GATT 1994 and Paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 8.2, and 11.3 of Part I of China’s Protocol of 

Accession to the WTO, as well as China’s obligations under Paragraph 1.2 of Part I of 

China’s Protocol of Accession. The United States considered that the measures also 

nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States under the cited agreements. In 

November 2009, the United States requested establishment of a panel, which was 

established on December 21, 2009, and composed on March 29, 2010. The panel was 

charged with examining this dispute, as well as two disputes involving similar issues 

brought by the EU and Mexico (DS395 and DS398). The panel report was circulated to 

members on July 5, 2011.

The dispute concerned four types of export restraints (export duties, export quotas, 

minimum export price requirements, and export licensing requirements) that China 

imposes on nine raw materials. The materials include various forms of bauxite, coke, 

fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus, and 

zinc, for almost all of which China is a leading global producer. The complainants69

collectively identified 40 specific Chinese measures in connection with their claims. They 

argued that the use of export restraints creates scarcity and causes higher prices of these

raw materials in global markets, and that the restraints provide the Chinese industry with 

an advantage in the form of a sufficient supply of the raw materials and a stable price. 

The panel found the export duties to be inconsistent with China’s commitments in its 

Protocol of Accession under which China agreed to eliminate all export duties (except on 

certain listed products) and agreed not to apply export quotas. The panel also found that 

68 WTO, DSB, DS316: European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft,

online summary. See also USTR, “WTO Appellate Body Confirms U.S. Win,” May 18, 2011. 69 Other complainants include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, the EU, India, 

Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and Turkey.
3-23

the wording of the protocol did not allow China to use the general exceptions in Article 

XX of the GATT 1994 to justify its WTO-inconsistent export duties and that, even if the 

protocol did, China had not complied with the requirements of those exceptions. The 

panel also rejected as insufficiently supported arguments made by China relating to the 

conservation of exhaustible natural resources and protection of the health of its citizens. 

The panel also found that certain aspects of China’s export licensing regime relating to 

the products were inconsistent with WTO rules.

On August 31, 2011, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of 

law and legal interpretation, and the United States notified the DSB of its decision to 

appeal certain issues on September 6, 2011. The report of the Appellate Body was 

circulated to members on January 30, 2012. The Appellate Body upheld the panel’s 

recommendation that China bring its export duty and export quota measures into 

conformity with its WTO obligations. However, the Appellate Body found that the panel 

erred in making findings regarding 37 of the challenged measures because the 

complainants had failed to provide sufficiently clear linkages between the broad range of

obligations in the covered agreements allegedly violated and the 37 measures. The 

Appellate Body upheld the panel on several other findings, including that China’s 

Accession Protocol did not allow China to use the exceptions in Article XX of the GATT 

1994 to justify export duties that are inconsistent with China’s obligations under 

Paragraph 11.3 of China’s Accession Protocol.70

Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits (DS403). In this dispute, the United States 

challenged the Philippines’ excise taxes on distilled spirits, asserting that the Philippines’ 

taxes on such spirits discriminated against imported distilled spirits by taxing them at a 

substantially higher rate than domestic spirits. The Philippines taxed spirits (mostly gins, 

brandies, rums, vodkas, whiskies, and tequila-type) made from designated materials at a 

low rate, and taxed similarly named spirits (e.g., gins, brandies, rums, vodkas, whiskies, 

and tequilas) made from non-designated materials at a rate that was 10 to 40 times higher. 

All domestic spirits were made from one designated material, sugar cane, while most 

imported spirits were made from non-designated materials, such as cereals or grapes. The 

United States alleged that such measures are inconsistent with Article III:2 of the GATT 

1994. The United States filed its request for consultations on January 14, 2010, and the 

EU subsequently requested to join them. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, 

the United States requested establishment of a panel. A panel was established on April 

20, 2010, which was also to examine a similar complaint made by the EU (DS396). The 

report of the panel was circulated to members on August 15, 2011. The panel found that 

the domestic and imported spirits were like each other and, because imported spirits were 

taxed less favorably than domestic spirits, the Philippine measure, while neutral on its 

face, was discriminatory and thus violated Article III:2 of the GATT 1994.

The Philippines appealed certain of the panel’s findings under Article III:2, and the report 

of the Appellate Body was circulated to members on December 21, 2011. The Appellate 

70 WTO, DSB, DS394: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, online 

summary. See also USTR, “WTO Panel Finds against China’s Export Restraints,” July 5, 2011. In March 

2012, the United States requested consultations with China as part of a new dispute settlement complaint 

against China’s export restraints on rare earths and tungsten and molybdenum—materials used as inputs in 

numerous U.S.-made products and manufacturing sectors, including hybrid car batteries, wind turbines, 

energy-efficient lighting, steel, advanced electronics, automobiles, petroleum, and chemicals. See USTR, 

“United States Challenges China’s Export Restraints,” March 13, 2012.
3-24

Body upheld the panel’s finding that a specific type of spirits (e.g., gins) made from nondesignated materials is “like” the same type of spirits (e.g., gins) made from designated 

materials. The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s findings that all imported distilled 

spirits made from non-designated raw materials are, irrespective of their type, “like” all 

domestic distilled spirits made from designated raw materials, but upheld the panel’s 

finding that they are “directly competitive or substitutable” with each other within the 

meaning of Article III:2. The Appellate Body also upheld the panel’s finding that the 

Philippines had applied dissimilar taxation for imported distilled spirits and directly 

competitive or substitutable domestic distilled spirits so as to afford protection to 

Philippine production of distilled spirits. Consequently, the Appellate Body upheld the 

panel’s finding that the Philippines had acted inconsistently with Article III:2. The DSB 

adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report (as modified by the Appellate 

Body report) at its meeting on January 20, 2012.71

Reports in which the United States was the respondent

United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—Second 

Complaint (DS353). In this dispute, the EC alleged that the United States provides 

prohibited and actionable subsidies at the federal, state, and local level to U.S. producers 

of LCA that are inconsistent with Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the SCM Agreement and Article 

III:4 of the GATT 1994. The EC cited 10 categories of measures and estimated the total 

amount of the alleged subsidies was $19.1 billion between 1989 and 2006, with more 

than half this amount accounted for by alleged research and development (R&D)

subsidies directed toward the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). A panel was established on February 17, 2006, and composed on November 22, 

2006. The report of the panel was delayed numerous times due to the substantive and 

procedural complexities of the dispute.

The panel report was circulated to members on March 31, 2011. The panel upheld the 

EC’s claims with respect to some of the measures maintained by the states of 

Washington, Kansas, Illinois, and municipalities therein, the NASA aeronautics R&D 

measures, some of the U.S. Department of Defense aeronautics R&D measures, and tax 

breaks relating to U.S. Foreign Sales Corporations and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion 

Act and successor acts. The panel estimated the total amount of these subsidies between 

1989 and 2006 to have been at least $5.3 billion. The panel either rejected other EC 

claims or exercised judicial economy and did not make findings.

On April 1, 2011, the EU notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 

certain issues of law covered in the panel report and certain legal interpretations, and on 

April 28, 2011, the United States also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal. On July 

4, 2011, the Chair of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that because of the size of the 

record, complexity of the appeal, the need to hold multiple sessions, and the overall 

workload of the Appellate Body, the Appellate Body would not be able to complete its 

71 WTO, DSB, DS403: Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits, online summary. See also USTR, 

“Ambassador Ron Kirk Announces U.S. Win in WTO Dispute,” August 15, 2011 (concerning the panel 

decision); and USTR, “Ambassador Kirk Announces U.S. Win in WTO Dispute,” December 21, 2011 

(concerning the Appellate Body decision).
3-25

work in 60 days. The Appellate Body held oral hearings in August and October 2011, and 

its report was circulated to members on March 12, 2012.72

United States—Definitive Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Products from China (DS379). In this dispute, China challenged determinations and 

orders of the U.S. Department of Commerce in several antidumping and countervailing

duty investigations involving imports from China, including imports of circular welded 

carbon-quality steel pipe, certain pneumatic off-the-road tires, light-walled rectangular 

pipe and tube, and laminated woven sacks. China alleged that the U.S. measures were 

inconsistent with Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994, various articles of the SCM 

Agreement and the Antidumping Agreement, and Article 15 of China’s WTO Protocol of 

Accession. China requested consultations on September 19, 2008. After consultations 

failed to resolve the dispute, China requested establishment of a panel. A panel was 

established on January 20, 2009, and composed on March 4, 2009.

In its report circulated to members on October 22, 2010, the panel upheld the findings of 

the USDOC and rejected most of China’s claims, including with respect to the meaning 

of the term “public body” and the state-owned companies that met the definition; 

USDOC’s findings that certain state-owned commercial bank lending was specific to the 

Chinese industry producing the subject product; and the USDOC’s use of benchmarks for 

calculating the amount of the benefit. The panel also agreed with the United States that 

China’s claims regarding “double remedy” fell outside the panel’s terms of reference and 

found, on the merits, that China had failed to establish that the alleged double remedy 

was inconsistent with the provisions of the SCM Agreement. On December 1, 2010, 

China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 

law and legal interpretations covered by the panel report.

China appealed certain panel findings regarding the USDOC’s determinations on “public 

body,” “specificity,” “benefit benchmarks,” and “double remedies.” The Appellate Body 

reversed the panel’s finding with regard to the meaning of the term “public body” under 

Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement and found, on the basis of its analysis, that the United 

States had acted inconsistently with its WTO obligations in finding that certain Chinese 

state-owned enterprises supplying steel, rubber, and petrochemical inputs to investigated 

companies constituted “public bodies.” However, the Appellate Body found that the 

United States had not acted inconsistently with its WTO obligations in determining that 

certain Chinese state-owned commercial banks that provided loans to investigated 

companies constituted “public bodies.” The Appellate Body upheld the panel’s finding 

that China failed to establish that the United States acted inconsistently with its WTO 

obligations in determining that certain state-owned commercial bank lending was specific 

to the tire industry. The Appellate Body also upheld the panel’s interpretation of Article 

14(b) of the SCM Agreement and upheld in part and reversed in part the panel’s findings 

with regard to the use of benchmarks.

72 WTO, DSB, DS353: United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft–Second 

Complaint, online summary. See also USTR, “United States Prevails in WTO Dispute over Large Civil 

Aircraft,” March 31, 2011; and USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Announces U.S. Victory,” March 12, 

2012. According to the USTR’s press release, the Appellate Body found between $3 billion and $4 billion in 

U.S. subsidies, in the form of research funded by NASA and the Department of Defense, and tax breaks 

granted by the state of Washington and city of Wichita, and lost sales of just over 100 aircraft.
3-26

The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that “double remedies” (offsetting the 

same subsidization twice through concurrent imposition of antidumping duties based on 

non-market economy methodology and countervailing duties) are not prohibited under 

the SCM Agreement. Based on its legal analysis, the Appellate Body found that in the 

four countervailing duty investigations at issue, the United States had failed to fulfill its 

obligation to determine the “appropriate” amount of countervailing duties within the 

meaning of Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body 

report and the panel report as modified by the Appellate Body on March 25, 2011. On 

April 21, 2011, the United States informed the DSB that it intended to implement the 

DSB recommendations and rulings, and the United States and China later informed the 

DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period for doing this would be by February 

25, 2012 (the date was later extended to April 25, 2012).73

United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna 

and Tuna Products (DS381). In this dispute, Mexico challenged the U.S. “dolphin-safe” 

labeling provisions. Mexico alleged that the U.S. measures, which establish the 

conditions for use of a “dolphin-safe” label on tuna products and condition access to the 

USDOC label on providing documentary evidence that varies depending on the area in 

which the tuna product is harvested and the fishing method, are inconsistent with Articles 

I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. 

Mexico asserted that the measures are discriminatory and also unnecessary. A panel was 

established on April 20, 2009, and composed on December 14, 2009. The panel report 

was circulated to members on September 15, 2011.

The panel rejected Mexico’s first claim, finding that the U.S. labeling provisions do not 

discriminate against Mexican tuna products and are not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of 

the TBT Agreement. The panel also rejected Mexico’s claim under Article 2.4 of the 

TBT Agreement, finding that the U.S. labeling requirements are not in violation of this 

provision, which requires that technical regulations be based on relevant international 

standards where possible. (The panel found that international standards identified to the 

panel by Mexico would not be appropriate or effective to achieve the U.S. objectives.)

However, with respect to Mexico’s claim under Article 2.2, the panel found that Mexico 

had demonstrated that the U.S. provisions are more trade-restrictive than necessary in 

light of the fact that they only partly address the legitimate objectives pursued by the 

United States and the fact that Mexico had provided the panel with a less restrictive 

alternative that could provide the same level of protection. The panel declined to rule on 

Mexico’s non-discrimination claims under GATT 1994 on judicial economy grounds.

On October 31, 2011, Mexico and the United States asked the DSB to extend the period 

for adopting the panel report or appealing the decision to January 20, 2012, and the 

request was agreed to. On January 20, 2012, the United States notified the DSB of its 

decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel, 

and on January 25, 2012, Mexico notified the DSB of its decision also to appeal certain 

issues of law and legal interpretations.74

73 WTO, DSB, DS379: United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Products from China, online summary. See also USTR, “USTR Statement Regarding WTO Appellate Body 

Report,” March 11, 2011, in which the USTR said that he was “deeply troubled” by the Appellate Body 

report because “it appears to be a clear case of overreaching by the Appellate Body.” 74 WTO, DSB, DS381: United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of 

Tuna and Tuna Products, online summary.
3-27

United States—Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related 

to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil (DS382). In this dispute, Brazil 

challenged the USDOC’s first and second (2005–07 and 2007–08) antidumping duty 

administrative reviews on imports of certain orange juice from Brazil, as well as the 

USDOC’s continued use of “zeroing” procedures in successive antidumping proceedings 

in relation to a U.S. antidumping duty order on imports of certain orange juice from 

Brazil. Brazil alleged that the U.S. measures are inconsistent with Articles II and VI of 

the GATT 1994 and certain articles of the Antidumping Agreement. A panel was 

established on September 25, 2009, and composed on May 10, 2010. The panel report 

was circulated to members on March 25, 2011.

The panel found that the United States had acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the 

Antidumping Agreement when the USDOC used “zeroing” to determine margins of 

dumping in the first and second administrative reviews, and also found that the

“continued use” of zeroing by the United States under the orange juice antidumping duty 

order was inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Antidumping Agreement. In resolving the 

dispute, the panel decided to exercise judicial economy and not to make findings with 

respect to Brazil’s other claims.

The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on June 17, 2011. On June 17, 2011, 

Brazil and the United States notified the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable 

time for the United States to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings would be 

nine months, or by March 17, 2012.75

United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements (DS384) 

and United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements (DS386). In 

these disputes, Canada and Mexico, respectively, challenged mandatory country of origin 

labeling (COOL) provisions in U.S. legislation that applied to certain covered agricultural 

commodities, including beef and pork, and were implemented through U.S. Department 

of Agriculture regulations.76 These regulations included an obligation to inform retail 

consumers of the country of origin of the covered commodities. It also required that a 

commodity, in order to be labeled as exclusively of U.S. origin, had to be born, raised, 

and slaughtered in the United States. Canada and Mexico variously alleged that the U.S. 

measures were inconsistent with Articles III, IX, and X of the GATT 1994, Articles 2 and 

12 of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, and Articles 2, 

5, and 7 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement. On November 19, 

2009, the DSB established a single panel to consider both disputes; the panel was 

composed on May 10, 2010. The panel report was circulated to members on November 

18, 2011.

The panel affirmed that the United States has the right under WTO rules to adopt COOL 

requirements and also confirmed that the United States had adopted the requirements to 

provide consumers with information about the origin of the meat products. However, the 

panel disagreed with the way in which the United States designed its requirements. The 

panel found the U.S. COOL regulations violate Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by 

75 WTO, DSB, DS382: United States—Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures 

Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, online summary. 76 Specifically, provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Farm, Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), 

and as implemented through an interim final rule in 7 CFR Parts 60 and 65.
3-28

according less favorable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs and Mexican 

cattle than to like domestic products, and also found that the requirements do not fulfill 

the legitimate objective of providing consumers with information on origin, and therefore 

violate Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The panel also found that a letter issued by the 

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on the implementation of the COOL measure constitutes 

unreasonable administration of the measure in violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 

1994. However, the panel determined that Mexico failed to demonstrate that the COOL 

regulations violate Articles 2.4, 12.3, and 12.1 of the TBT Agreement. The panel did not 

find it necessary to rule on certain other claims under Articles III and Article XXIII of the 

GATT 1994.

On December 21, 2011, the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada 

requested the DSB to extend the 60-day period for adopting the panel report or filing an 

appeal to March 23, 2012. The DSB agreed to the requests on January 5, 2012.77

United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light 

Truck Tyres from China (DS399). In this dispute, China challenged higher tariffs 

imposed by the United States on imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires 

following an investigation by the USITC under the China safeguard provision in section 

421 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451.).78 China alleged that the higher tariffs are 

inconsistent with Articles I:1 and II:1 of the GATT 1994 and had not been properly 

justified under Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards. China 

also alleged the measures were not properly justified, or were inconsistent as applied, 

with U.S. obligations under paragraph 16 of China’s Protocol of Accession. A panel was 

established on January 19, 2010, and composed on March 12, 2010. The panel circulated 

its report to the members on December 13, 2010. The panel disagreed with China on all 

substantive points. For a summary of the panel’s findings, see the Year in Trade 2010

report.79

On January 27, 2011, China and the United States asked the DSB to extend the 60-day 

period for filing an appeal with the Appellate Body to May 24, 2011, and the DSB so 

agreed at its meeting on February 7, 2011. On May 24, 2011, China notified the DSB of 

its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation 

covered by the panel report.

China appealed various aspects of the panel’s findings, but the Appellate Body upheld the 

panel’s findings in all significant respects. In considering China’s appeal, the Appellate 

Body addressed the meaning of the term “a significant cause” in Paragraph 16.4 of the 

protocol and found that it requires that rapidly increasing imports make an “important” or 

“notable” contribution to bringing about material injury to the domestic industry. The 

Appellate Body explained that a competent authority can make a determination of 

“significant” cause only if it ensures that effects of other known causes are not 

improperly attributed to subject imports. The Appellate Body upheld the panel’s finding 

that the USITC did not fail to properly evaluate whether imports from China met the 

specific threshold under Paragraph 16.4 of the protocol of “increasing rapidly”; upheld 

77 WTO, DSB, DS384: United States—Certain County of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements; and

DS386: United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements, online summary. See also USTR, 

“Statement by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Response,” November 18, 2011. 78 See chapter 2 section on safeguard actions for more details. 79 USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, 3-20 to 3-21.
3-29

the panel’s finding that the USITC did not err in its assessment of the conditions of 

competition in the overall U.S. tires market; upheld the panel’s finding that the USITC’s 

reliance on the overall coincidence between an upward movement in imports from China 

and a downward movement in injury factors supported the USITC’s finding that rapidly 

increasing imports from China were a significant cause of material injury to the domestic 

industry; and upheld the panel’s finding that China failed to establish that the USITC 

improperly attributed injury caused by other factors to imports from China. The report of 

the Appellate Body and the report of the panel as modified by the Appellate Body were 

adopted by the DSB on October 5, 2011.80

United States—Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures Involving Products from 

Korea (DS402). In this dispute, filed in November 2009, the Republic of Korea 

challenged U.S. use of “zeroing” in three antidumping investigations involving certain 

products from Korea—stainless steel plate in coils, stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, 

and diamond sawblades and parts thereof. Korea argued that the use of zeroing by the 

USDOC in its final determinations either artificially created margins of dumping or 

inflated margins of dumping, and that such action was inconsistent with U.S. obligations 

under Article VI of GATT 1994 and the Antidumping Agreement. After consultations 

failed to resolve the dispute, Korea asked that a panel be established. A panel was 

established on May 18, 2010, and the panel was composed on July 8, 2010.

The panel report was circulated to members on January 18, 2011. Korea restricted its 

claim before the panel to an allegation that the zeroing methodology used by the United 

States in the antidumping investigations was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the AntiDumping Agreement. The United States did not contest Korea’s claim. The panel upheld 

Korea’s claim and concluded that the United States had acted inconsistently with its 

obligations under this provision. The DSB adopted the panel report on February 24, 2011. 

On December 19, 2011, the United States reported that it had fully implemented the 

DSB’s recommendations and ruling within the reasonable period of time agreed to by the 

parties.81

United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Vietnam (DS404).

In this dispute, Vietnam challenged U.S. antidumping measures on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, alleging that the measures are inconsistent with U.S. 

obligations under Articles I, II, and VI of the GATT 1994, several provisions of the 

Antidumping Agreement, Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement, and Vietnam’s Protocol 

of Accession. More specifically, Vietnam challenged the “continued use” by USDOC of 

certain practices, including use of zeroing in calculating dumping margins, USDOC’s

limitation of the number of exporters or producers selected for individual investigation or 

review, and the application of a “Vietnam-wide entity” rate determined on the basis of 

adverse facts. Vietnam also challenged the “all others” rate applied by USDOC in the 

second and third administrative reviews and the U.S. zeroing methodology in calculating 

margins of dumping in the context of administrative reviews. After the consultations 

failed to resolve the dispute, Vietnam requested establishment of a panel. The DSB 

80 WTO, DSB, DS399: United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and 

Light Truck Tyres from China, online summary. See also USTR, “United States Prevails in WTO Dispute,” 

September 5, 2011. 81 WTO, DSB, DS402: United States—Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures Involving Products 

from Korea, online summary.
3-30

established a panel at its meeting on May 18, 2010, and the panel was composed on July 

26, 2010.

The report of the panel was circulated to members on July 11, 2011. The panel agreed 

with the United States that the measure described by Vietnam as the “continued use of 

challenged practices” in successive proceedings fell outside the panel’s terms of 

reference because it was not identified in Vietnam’s panel request and was not subject to 

WTO dispute settlement because it purported to include future measures. However, the 

panel upheld Vietnam’s claims with respect to USDOC’s use of zeroing in the second 

and third administrative reviews and U.S. zeroing methodology as it relates to the use of 

simple zeroing in administrative reviews. The panel rejected Vietnam’s claims with 

respect to USDOC’s decisions to limit the number of selected respondents, but upheld 

Vietnam’s claims with respect to the “all others” rate applied by the USDOC and with 

respect to USDOC’s application of a facts-available rate to the Vietnam-wide entity. The 

DSB adopted the panel report on September 2, 2011. On October 31, 2011, Vietnam and 

the United States informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable time for the 

United States to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings is 10 months—that is, 

by July 2, 2012.82

United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes 

(DS406). In this dispute, Indonesia challenged a U.S. ban on clove cigarettes. Indonesia 

alleged that section 907 of U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act signed into law on 

June 22, 2009, 83 prohibits the production or sale in the United States of cigarettes 

containing certain additives, including clove, but would continue to permit the production 

and sale of other cigarettes, including cigarettes containing menthol. Indonesia alleged 

that section 907 is inconsistent, inter alia, with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, Article 2 

of the TBT Agreement, and various provisions of the SPS Agreement. After consultations 

failed to resolve the dispute, Indonesia requested establishment of a panel. A panel was 

established on July 20, 2010, and composed on September 9, 2010.

The panel report was circulated to members on September 2, 2011. Indonesia made two 

main claims—that the ban is discriminatory, and that it restricts trade more than 

necessary. The panel agreed with Indonesia on the first claim. It found the measure to be 

a technical regulation that falls within the scope of the TBT Agreement and found the 

U.S. ban to be inconsistent with the national treatment obligation in Article 2.1 of the 

TBT Agreement because it accords less favorable treatment to clove cigarettes than 

menthol cigarettes. The panel found clove and menthol-flavored cigarettes to be “like 

products” within the meaning of the TBT Agreement, based in part on its factual findings 

that both types of cigarettes are flavored and appeal to youth. However, the panel rejected 

Indonesia’s second main claim, indicating that Indonesia had failed to demonstrate that 

the ban is more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective (in this 

case, reducing youth smoking) within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 

The panel also found that the United States had acted inconsistently with its obligations 

in several other respects, including failure to notify technical regulations and failure to 

allow a reasonable interval between publication and entry into force of the regulation. 

82 WTO, DSB, DS404: United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Vietnam,

online summary. 83 Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as added by section 101 of the 

Family Smoking Prevention Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-31.
3-31

However, the panel also found that Indonesia had failed to demonstrate that the United 

States acted inconsistently in other respects, such as in its obligations to provide an 

explanation of the draft technical regulation. On January 5, 2012, the United States 

notified the DSB that it would appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered 

in the panel report and legal interpretations.84

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

The OECD provides a forum where member governments review and discuss economic, 

social, and governance policy experiences affecting their market economies, as well as 

the global economy. At the end of 2011, there were 34 OECD members.85

OECD Council at Ministerial Level

OECD members held their 50th anniversary ministerial council meeting on May 25–26, 

2011, in Paris, France. As part of the commemoration, the members set out a vision 

statement for the continued evolution of the organization as a key forum for economic 

and social policy development and dialogue.86 Ministers discussed key policy challenges 

centered around the topics of (1) growth, jobs, innovation, and skills; (2) green growth; 

(3) a new paradigm for development; and (4) trade and jobs.87

At the council meeting, ministers endorsed working toward a “new paradigm for 

development,”88 following the demonstration during the 2008–09 global economic crisis 

of the interconnectedness of advanced, emerging, and developing economies, which 

revealed the need for new approaches to economic growth and development.89 A central 

focus of this new approach will be to broaden the scope of OECD’s development work in 

such areas as innovative and sustainable sources of growth, including the promotion of 

green growth; improved mobilization of domestic resources for development, fostered in 

particular through favorable investment climates and better-functioning tax systems; 

good governance practices that help stem corruption and promote public sector integrity; 

and improved indicators to measure the progress of development.90

Ministers agreed that the OECD should focus on helping governments sustain and 

strengthen economic recovery, maximize the employment potential of economic growth, 

and continue to address inequalities that hinder sustainable growth.91 Discussions on 

green growth focused on issues involving the sustainable use of natural resources, 

increased efficiencies in the use of energy, and valuation of ecosystem 

84 WTO, DSB, DS406: United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes,

online summary. 85 OECD membership at the end of 2011 included Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,

Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 

Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 86 OECD, Council, “Meeting, 25–26 May 2011––Chair’s Summary,” May 26, 2011. 87 OECD, Council, “Meeting, 25–26 May 2011––Discussion Notes,” April 29, 2011. 88 OECD, Council, “Meeting, 25–26 May 2011––Chair’s Summary,” May 26, 2011, 3. 89 OECD, Council, “Meeting, 25–26 May 2011––Discussion Notes,” April 29, 2011, 4. 90 OECD, Council, “Meeting, 25–26 May 2011––Chair’s Summary,” May 26, 2011, 4. 91 Ibid., 3.
3-32

services.92 Additional areas discussed as part of this expanded approach to development 

included trade, investment, food security, and women’s economic empowerment. 93

Finally, ministers reaffirmed the importance of a strong, rules-based multilateral trading 

system to support the economic growth and international trade that generates jobs.94

Trade Committee95

The Trade Committee held its 157th session May 4–5, 2011, and its 158th session 

November 9–10, 2011. At its May meeting, the committee considered work underway in 

the Working Party of the Trade Committee and the Joint Working Party on Agriculture 

and Trade. It looked at ongoing work on trade communications and horizontal initiatives

as well––in particular, the International Collaborative Initiative on Trade and 

Employment; groundwork for the Green Growth Strategy and Green Growth for Food 

and Agriculture topics addressed at the ministerial conference; further work examining 

fossil fuel subsidies; and work on the value-added component embodied in world trade. 

The Trade Committee also discussed work concerning nontariff measures, regional trade 

agreements, and export restrictions, in addition to preparations for the trade session of the 

May ministerial council meeting.

As part of its May meeting, the committee held discussions with representatives of the 

G20 countries96 on trade and employment, global food security, trade in services, policy 

implications stemming from OECD research on comparative advantage, work underway 

on trade and development, and future participation in Trade Committee work by G20 

members.97

During its November meeting, the committee discussed several topics connected with

trade in services, such as identifying regulatory impediments; policies and markets for

commodities and raw materials; regional trade agreements; and various aspects of 

multilateral trade negotiations in light of the current problems in the Doha Round of trade 

talks.98

92 Ibid. The valuation of ecosystem services typically sets a monetary value on services—such as the 

provision of food, scenic views, and clean air or water—by an ecosystem such as a forest, wetland, or estuary. 93 OECD, Council, “Meeting, 25–26 May 2011––Discussion Notes,” April 29, 2011, 5–6. 94 OECD, Council, “Meeting, 25–26 May 2011––Chair’s Summary,” May 26, 2011, 5. 95 OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Trade Committee, “Summary Record: 157th Session of 

the Trade Committee––Plenary Session,” October 28, 2011; OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Trade 

Committee, “Summary Record: 157th Session of the Trade Committee––Confidential Session,” October 28, 

2011. 96 G20 membership includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, France, Germany, 

India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United 

Kingdom, and the United States. G20 Web site, “G20, 2012, Mexico.” The G20 is an informal group of 19 

countries, plus the EU, brought together in November 2008 initially to help counter the financial and 

economic crisis spreading at that time to the global economy, and subsequently to promote cooperation 

toward stable economic growth worldwide. 97 OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Trade Committee, “Summary Record: 157th Session of 

the Trade Committee––Session with the Participation of G20 Members,” October 28, 2011. 98 OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Trade Committee, “158th Session of the Trade 

Committee: Plenary Session––Draft Agenda,” October 20, 2011; OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate,

Trade Committee, “158th Session of the Trade Committee: Confidential Session––Draft Agenda,” August 5, 

2011.
3-33

Export Credit Arrangement and Aircraft Sector Understanding

As noted in last year’s report, agreement in principle was reached in December 2010 on 

the revision of the 1986 Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft 

(“Aircraft Sector Understanding” or ASU), part of the 1978 Arrangement on Officially 

Supported Export Credits (“Export Credit Arrangement”). The revised ASU was formally 

signed in February 2011. It was then incorporated into the March 2011 version of the 

Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits under Annex III.99

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

APEC is an international organization that consists of Pacific Basin economies seeking to 

enhance intraregional economic growth and cooperation.100 The organization operates as 

a cooperative, multilateral economic and trade group, whose decisions are made by 

consensus and whose commitments are undertaken voluntarily. Since its inception, APEC 

has aimed to facilitate economic growth, trade, investment, and cooperation in the AsiaPacific region.101 APEC pursues progress toward greater regional economic integration 

through annual meetings of heads of state and trade ministers, and coordinates capacitybuilding and liberalization efforts with member economies throughout the year. In 1994, 

member economies committed to the “Bogor Goals”––named for the summit in Bogor, 

Indonesia––which aim to create a free and open trade and investment area in the AsiaPacific region by 2010 for the industrialized economies and by 2020 for the developing 

economies.102

Under the chairmanship of the United States throughout 2011, APEC focused on 

increasing regional economic integration, promoting green economic growth through a 

tariff reduction strategy and other initiatives, and advancing regulatory cooperation.103

These initiatives were designed to begin the process of taking practical steps in support of 

a strategy adopted by APEC leaders in Yokohama, Japan, in 2010, which focused on 

sustainable growth strategies and “next generation” trade facilitation that extended 

beyond tariff reduction. 104 In addition, the APEC annual summit, held in Honolulu, 

Hawaii, in November 2011, served as a forum for discussing possible pathways toward a 

Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) as well as other multilateral commitments.

99 OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Participants to the Arrangement on Officially Supported 

Export Credits, “Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits––March 2011,” March 3, 2011. For 

further details, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, 3-23. 100 APEC was established in 1989 when ministers from 12 Asia-Pacific governments met in Canberra, 

Australia, to discuss world and regional economic developments, global trade liberalization, and 

opportunities for regional cooperation. Current APEC membership includes Australia; Brunei Darussalam; 

Canada; Chile; China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua 

New Guinea; Peru; the Philippines; Russia; Singapore; Taiwan; Thailand; the United States; and Vietnam. 

For further details, see APEC, APEC at a Glance, January 2012, and the APEC Web site, 

http://www.apec.org/. 101 APEC, APEC at a Glance, January 2012. 102 APEC, Outcomes and Outlook, January 2012. 103 USTR, “APEC Launches 2011 Efforts,” March 13, 2011. 104 APEC, “2011 Meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade,” May 2011.
3-34

The Bogor Goals, FTAAP, and Related APEC Commitments

In 2010, APEC members assessed the progress made by the 13 industrialized members

toward the Bogor Goals and determined that while broad liberalization had led to 

increased trade and investment linkages in the region, trade barriers between the 

economies remained. 105 In 2011, APEC ministers and leaders renewed their commitment 

to the Bogor Goals, focusing on the 2020 goal for all member economies. As a means of 

reviewing progress toward the achievement of the goals, ministers endorsed a set of 

standardized guidelines for self-reporting new trade policies and improvements.106

The link between APEC and the evolving regional architecture of economic cooperation 

in the Asia-Pacific region became more robust in 2011. This link was highlighted by the 

Prime Minister of Japan’s announcement just before the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in 

November 2011 that Japan was entering into consultations toward participating in the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which already included nine APEC 

economies.107 In addition, leaders of the countries negotiating the TPP used the sidelines 

of the summit to release a broad outline for the TPP agreement. 108 Senior officials 

involved in negotiations continued to remark on the inclusive nature of TPP negotiations 

as the most promising path toward an FTAAP.109 APEC’s Policy Support Unit released a 

report analyzing the complementary roles that TPP and APEC can play, with APEC 

serving as an idea generator and TPP acting as a major avenue toward liberalization.110

APEC trade ministers reiterated their confidence in the underlying institutional strength 

of the WTO, but stated that they saw the conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda in 

its current form as an increasingly unrealistic goal. As a result, ministers supported taking 

“fresh and credible approaches” in future WTO Ministerial Conferences.111 Ministers 

also expressed support for Russia’s acceding to the WTO before it hosts APEC in 

2012. 112 In addition, heads of state agreed to take a leadership role in launching 

negotiations to expand product coverage by and membership in the WTO’s Information 

Technology Agreement.113

Regional Economic Integration and Regulatory Cooperation

In addition to providing a forum for leaders to discuss possible pathways toward 

multilateral liberalization, APEC pursues an agenda of regional economic integration that

relies on developing nonbinding common principles, action plans, workshops, and 

research on best practices. This work continues throughout the year under the oversight 

105 APEC, “Leaders’ Statement on the 2010 Bogor Goals Assessment,” November 14, 2010; APEC, 

“2010 Leaders’ Declaration,” November 13–14, 2010, 2, 4. 106 APEC, CTI, CTI Annual Report to Ministers: 2011, November 2011, Appendix I, 1. 107 Government of Japan, Prime Minister of Japan, “Press Conference by Prime Minister Yoshihiko 

Noda,” November 13, 2011. For more information on the TPP, see the subsection on FTA developments 

during 2011 in chapter 4. 108 USTR, “Outlines of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” November 12, 2011. 109 For examples of citations from senior officials linking the TPP and the proposed FTAAP, see 

USDOS, “Remarks at the First Senior Officials Meeting,” March 9, 2011; Government of Japan, Prime 

Minister of Japan, “Press Conference by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda,” November 13, 2011. 110 APEC, Policy Support Unit, The Mutual Usefulness between APEC and TPP, October 2011. 111 APEC, “APEC Ministers’ Statement on the WTO,” November 11, 2011. 112 Ibid. 113 APEC, “2011 Leaders’ Declaration,” November 14, 2011.
3-35

of the APEC Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) and is guided by the outcomes 

of ministerial and leadership meetings. In 2011, members agreed to continue to refrain 

from export restrictions on food products in order to ensure food security, and launched 

the APEC Travel Facilitation Initiative to develop ways to make travel in the region 

faster, easier, and more secure.114 APEC and the CTI also pursued a number of initiatives 

designed to encourage regulatory convergence in specific sectors, including chemicals, 

medical products, foods and beverages, and emerging sectors such as solar technology.115

Member economies agreed on a number of measures to promote “green growth” in 2011, 

including a commitment to develop an APEC-specific list of environmental goods that 

directly contribute to sustainable development objectives. Leaders agreed that once this 

list had been finalized, applied tariffs on these products would be reduced to 5 percent or 

less by the end of 2015. Leaders also agreed to eliminate nontariff barriers, such as localcontent requirements, that distort trade in environmental goods and services.116 Other 

green growth initiatives included a new review process for measuring the phasing out of 

fossil fuel subsidies and a program to make lists of member-economy trade restrictions 

on remanufactured goods publicly available.117 In 2011, 11 economies, including the 

United States, began participating in the APEC Pathfinder Initiative on Facilitating Trade 

in Remanufactured Goods, 118 a commitment to refrain from treating remanufactured 

goods as “used,” since used goods are subject to special restrictions under regulatory and 

trade regimes.119

Trade ministers and ministers responsible for the development of small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) met in Big Sky, Montana, in May 2011 to identify barriers 

facing SMEs in the region. Ministers and other officials agreed on a set of specific 

practical actions to reduce these barriers, including developing Web sites offering

information on customs and regulatory regimes and on registration requirements for 

intellectual property.120 Member economies also agreed to pursue a program to improve 

supply chain performance by establishing de minimis values that exempt certain postal 

shipments from charges and entry requirements. In addition, ministers endorsed the 

APEC Guidelines for Customs Border Enforcement of Counterfeiting and Piracy to help 

customs authorities strengthen enforcement of intellectual property protection at the 

border.121

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is an international trade agreement 

intended to help countries work together to more effectively address large-scale 

114 APEC, “2011 Leaders’ Declaration,” November 14, 2011. 115 APEC, “APEC Ministers’ Statement,” November 11, 2011. 116 APEC, “2011 Leaders’ Declaration,” November 14, 2011. 117 APEC, “APEC Ministers’ Statement,” November 11, 2011. 118 The USITC is currently conducting a study on remanufactured goods. See USITC, “Remanufactured 

Goods Trade to Be Focus of New USITC Study,” July 21, 2011. 119 APEC, “APEC Ministers’ Statement,” November 11, 2011, Annex D. 120 APEC, “APEC Ministers’ Statement,” November 11, 2011, Annex B. 121 APEC, “APEC Ministers’ Statement,” November 11, 2011.
3-36

violations of intellectual property rights (IPR). 122 It establishes a strong international 

framework for IPR enforcement, including enhanced international cooperation; 

promotion of sound enforcement practices; and a common legal framework in the areas 

of criminal enforcement, border enforcement, civil and administrative actions, and 

addressing the distribution of infringing material on the Internet.123

Eight countries—Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, 

and the United States—signed ACTA in Tokyo on October 1, 2011.124 On December 16, 

2011, the 27 EU member states unanimously authorized the signature and ratification of 

ACTA. 125 ACTA will remain open for signature until May 1, 2013, for the other 

participants in the negotiation (Mexico and Switzerland), as well as any other WTO 

members, upon the agreement of the participants. After signature, the next step for 

bringing ACTA into force is the deposit of instruments of ratification; ACTA will enter 

into force 30 days after ratification by six countries.126

122 USTR, “Resource Center: Intellectual Property; Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,” n.d. 

http://www.ustr.gov/acta (accessed February 12, 2012). 123 U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Intellectual Property Spotlight,

September/October 2011, 2. 124 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda, March 2012, 162. 125 European Commission, “ACTA: Questions and Answers,” February 2012. In February 2012, the 

European Commission asked the European Court of Justice to independently verify the compatibility of 

ACTA with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms. The European Commission believes that ACTA is 

fully compatible, but seeks as complete a record as possible to support its ratification by national authorities 

and the European Parliament. Ibid. 126 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, May 2011, Arts. 39 and 40.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/pdfs/acta1105_en.pdf.
4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

U.S. Free Trade Agreements 

This chapter summarizes developments related to U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) 

during 2011. It describes trends in U.S. merchandise trade with current FTA partners 

during 2011, the status of U.S. FTA negotiations during the year, and major North 

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) activities, including NAFTA dispute 

settlement developments during the year. 

FTAs in Force during 2011 

The United States was a party to 11 FTAs as of December 31, 2011.1 These include the 

U.S.-Peru TPA (which entered into force in 2009); the U.S.-Oman FTA (2009); a 

multiparty FTA with countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic 

(CAFTA-DR) that entered into force first with respect to the Dominican Republic, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (2006–07), and then Costa Rica (2009); 

the U.S.-Bahrain FTA (2006); the U.S.-Morocco FTA (2006); the U.S.-Australia FTA 

(2005); the U.S.-Chile FTA (2004); the U.S.-Singapore FTA (2004); the U.S.-Jordan 

FTA (2001); NAFTA (1994); and the U.S.-Israel FTA (1985).2

In 2011, total two-way merchandise trade between the United States and its FTA partners 

was $1.2 trillion, or 34.2 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. 

merchandise exports to FTA partners rose by 17.9 percent in 2011 to $512.6 billion and 

accounted for 39.5 percent of total U.S. exports (table 4.1). U.S. imports of goods from 

FTA partners in 2011 grew at a slightly lower rate, up 15.1 percent to $679.3 billion, and 

accounted for 31.1 percent of global U.S. imports. The United States’ NAFTA partners 

accounted for 81.6 percent of total U.S. trade with its FTA partners or $972.8 billion in 

2011. 

The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its FTA partners mostly reflected the U.S. deficit 

with its NAFTA partners, which grew from $166.8 billion in 2010 to $185.4 billion in 

2011, an increase of $18.6 billion. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with all of its FTA 

partners grew to $166.7 billion in 2011, an increase of $11.3 billion. The United States 

thus registered a trade surplus with its non-NAFTA partners of $18.7 billion in 2011, up 

sharply from $11.5 billion in 2010. The FTA partners with which the United States 

recorded a merchandise trade surplus in 2011 were (in descending order of magnitude) 

Australia, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, Peru, Bahrain, the CAFTA-DR countries taken 

together, and Jordan, while the United States recorded a merchandise trade deficit with 

Mexico, Canada, Israel, and Oman.

 1

 Starting with the U.S.-Singapore FTA in 2004, the modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

required to implement each FTA can be found at USITC, Tariff Information Center Web site, 

http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/hts_index.htm. 2

 The U.S.-Korea FTA entered into force on March 15, 2012, and the U.S.-Colombia TPA entered into 

force on May 15, 2012. 
4-2 

TABLE 4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2009–11

 2009 2010 2011

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

Israel 6,237 6,479 8,084

NAFTA 277,413 337,558 393,684

 Canada 171,695 205,956 233,774

 Mexico 105,718 131,602 159,910

Jordan 1,165 1,138 1,410

Chile 8,694 9,903 14,498

Singapore 19,924 26,349 28,224

Australia 18,244 20,296 25,491

Morocco 1,584 1,931 2,842

Bahrain 629 1,204 1,166

CAFTA-DR 18,850 22,735 28,403

Oman 1,065 1,061 1,369

Perua

 4,022 6,079 7,412

 FTA partner total 357,826 434,732 512,584

 World total 936,745 1,122,131 1,299,176

 FTA partner share of world (percent) 38.2 38.7 39.5

 

Imports: 

Israel 18,743 20,975 23,022

NAFTA 400,893 504,360 579,067

 Canada 224,584 275,536 316,397

 Mexico 176,309 228,824 262,671

Jordan 924 974 1,060

Chile 6,047 7,068 9,170

Singapore 15,588 17,345 18,982

Australia 7,998 8,610 10,173

Morocco 467 685 991

Bahrain 463 420 518

CAFTA-DR 18,816 23,701 27,947

Oman 883 773 2,184

Perua

 3,834 5,173 6,153

 FTA partner total 474,656 590,083 679,267

 World total 1,549,163 1,898,610 2,186,951

 FTA partner share of world (percent) 30.6 31.1 31.1

 

Trade balance: 

Israel –12,506 –14,496 –14,938

NAFTA –123,480 –166,802 –185,384

 Canada –52,889 – 69,580 –82,623

 Mexico –70,591 –97,222 –102,761

Jordan 241 164 350

Chile 2,646 2,835 5,328

Singapore 4,336 9,005 9,243

Australia 10,246 11,685 15,318

Morocco 1,117 1,246 1,851

Bahrain 165 784 648

CAFTA-DR 34 –966 456

Oman 182 288 –815

Perua

 188 906 1,259

 FTA partner total –116,829 –155,351 –166,683

 World total –612,419 –776,479 –887,775

 FTA partner share of world (percent) 19.1 20.0 18.8

Source: USDOC. 

a

FTA entered into force for Peru on February 1, 2009. 
4-3 

The value of U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions increased 14.7 percent, from 

$311.3 billion in 2010 to $357.0 billion in 2011 (table 4.2). U.S. imports that entered 

under FTAs accounted for 52.6 percent of total imports from FTA partners. About 42.6 

percent of total imports from CAFTA-DR partners entered under FTA provisions in 

2011. More than 60 percent of total imports (in descending order of magnitude) from 

Jordan, El Salvador, Honduras, Oman, Bahrain, Mexico, and Chile entered under FTA 

provisions, mainly crude oil, apparel, sugar, fruits and vegetables, and motor vehicles and 

parts. The share of U.S. imports from these seven countries entering under FTA 

provisions was relatively large in 2011 because a small share (less than 10 percent) of the 

imports from these countries enters the United States duty free under normal trade 

relations. On the other hand, 20 percent or less of total imports from Morocco, Costa 

Rica, Israel, and Singapore entered under FTA provisions. U.S. imports from these 

partners consisted mainly of chemicals, fruit, machinery parts, apparel, and petroleum 

oils. The share of U.S. imports from Singapore, Israel, Costa Rica, and Morocco entering 

under FTA provisions continued to be small in 2011 because a large share (over 60 

percent) of the imports from these countries can already enter the United States duty free 

under normal trade relations. Imports that entered under FTA provisions accounted for 

16.3 percent of total U.S. imports in 2011, a small decrease from 16.4 percent in 2010. 

FTA Developments during 2011 

On October 3, 2011, the President transmitted draft legislation to Congress to implement 

the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (U.S.-Panama TPA), the U.S.-Colombia 

Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA), and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement 

(KORUS FTA). The implementing legislation was approved by Congress on October 12, 

2011, and signed into law by the President on October 21, 2011. As of yearend 2011, the 

United States was receiving and transmitting the necessary materials from the 

governments of Panama, Colombia,3

 and Korea4 to bring these FTAs into force. 

On August 9, 2011, the United States requested the establishment of an arbitral panel 

under article 20.6 of the CAFTA-DR regarding Guatemala’s failure to enforce its labor 

laws under Article 16.2.1(a) of the CAFTA-DR.5

 This is the first labor case brought by 

the United States under a free trade agreement. At issue is Guatemala’s failure to meet its 

obligations with respect to the effective enforcement of its labor laws related to the right 

to association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, and acceptable conditions of 

work.6

 3

 The U.S.-Colombia TPA entered into force on May 15, 2012. “Proclamation 8818 of May 14, 2012, 

to Implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and for Other Purposes,” 77 Fed. Reg. 

29519–29523 (May 18, 2012). 4

 The KORUS FTA entered into force on March 15, 2012. “Proclamation 8783 of March 6, 2012, to 

Implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement,” 77 Fed. Reg. 14265–14267 (March 9, 2012). 5

 Article 16.2.1(a) requires that “[a] Party shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws, through a 

sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade between Parties, after the date 

of entry into force of this Agreement.” USTR, Letter from Ambassador Ron Kirk to Guatemala requesting an 

Arbitral Panel, August 9, 2011. 6

 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Announces Next Step in Labor Rights Enforcement 

Case against Guatemala,” August 2011. 
4-4 

TABLE 4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2009–11

FTA partner 2009 2010 2011

% change 

2010–11

 Millions of $ 

Israel 2,493 2,726 2,661 –2.4

NAFTA 219,664 286,131 326,551 14.1

 Canada 112,373 145,426 162,734 11.9

 Mexico 107,291 140,705 163,817 16.4

Jordan 240 606 870 43.6

Chile 3,453 4,429 5,706 28.8

Singapore 850 1,163 1,138 –2.2

Australia 2,758 2,751 3,034 10.3

Morocco 114 163 201 23.5

CAFTA-DR 9,009 10,513 11,912 13.3

 El Salvador 1,425 1,740 1,913 9.9

 Honduras 2,469 2,889 3,270 13.2

 Nicaragua 783 935 1,282 37.1

 Guatemala 1,354 1,558 1,829 17.4

 Dominican Republic 1,802 2,088 2,251 7.8

 Costa Rica 1,176 1,302 1,367 5.0

Bahrain 258 274 326 18.8

Oman 456 350 1,526 336.1

Perua

 981 2,224 3,079 38.5

 Total imports under FTA provisions 240,276 311,329 357,005 14.7

 World 1,549,163 1,898,610 2,186,951 15.2

 Share of total imports from FTA partner 

Israel 13.3 13.0 11.6

NAFTA 54.8 56.7 56.4

 Canada 50.0 52.8 51.4

 Mexico 60.9 61.5 62.4

Jordan 26.0 62.2 82.1

Chile 57.1 62.7 62.2

Singapore 5.5 6.7 6.0

Australia 34.5 31.9 29.8

Morocco 24.5 23.8 20.3

CAFTA-DR 47.9 44.4 42.6

 El Salvador 78.2 78.6 77.1

 Honduras 73.8 73.9 73.4

 Nicaragua 48.6 46.5 49.2

 Guatemala 43.2 48.4 44.2

 Dominican Republic 54.5 57.2 54.2

 Costa Rica 21.0 15.0 13.5

Bahrain 55.6 65.3 62.9 

Oman 51.7 45.3 69.8

Perua

 25.6 43.0 50.1

 FTA partner total 50.6 52.8 52.6

Source: USDOC. 

a Table only includes trade with Peru after FTA entered into force on February 1, 2009. 

Under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA), the United States and Peru 

held a meeting of the Sub-Committee of Forest Sector Governance on July 14, 2011. The 

meeting focused on the progress made in implementing provisions of the PTPA Annex 

on Forest Sector Governance, which is aimed at preventing illegal logging and illegal 
4-5 

trade in wildlife.7

 Officials discussed Peru’s new Forestry and Wildlife Law as well as 

regulations Peru is developing to implement the law. The two sides also discussed other 

efforts Peru is undertaking to ensure implementation of the annex, including mechanisms 

to conduct forest inventories in permanent production forests and procedures to audit 

timber producers.8

There were no changes in the status of other previously initiated FTA negotiations with 

Ecuador, the Southern African Customs Union (SACU),9

 Thailand, and the United Arab 

Emirates, or countries involved with the Free Trade Area of the Americas. In November 

2011, Canada, Japan, and Mexico formally announced their intentions to begin 

consultations with the aim of joining negotiations to conclude a Trans-Pacific Partnership 

(TPP) agreement that includes the United States. 10 The status of ongoing U.S. FTA 

negotiations during 2011 is shown in table 4.3. 

U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement

On June 28, 2007, the United States and Panama signed a reciprocal trade promotion 

agreement known as the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA). Negotiations 

were formally concluded on December 16, 2006, with the understanding that additional 

changes would be made to several chapters of the agreement. All changes were agreed to 

in June 2007, and the agreement was ratified by Panama’s National Assembly on July 11, 

2007. Four years later, on October 3, 2011, the President transmitted draft legislation to 

Congress to implement the U.S.-Panama TPA. The implementing legislation was 

approved by Congress on October 12, 2011, and signed into law by the President on 

October 21, 2011.11

The U.S.-Panama TPA replaces duty-free treatment extended to Panama by unilateral 

trade preferences under CBERA, CBTPA, and the GSP. 12 Most U.S. imports from 

Panama already enter the United States duty free under normal trade relations (NTR).13

Upon implementation, more than 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial 

goods to Panama will become immediately duty free, with remaining tariffs phased out 

over a 10-year period. Products receiving immediate duty-free treatment include 

information technology and telecommunications equipment, electrical equipment, 

agricultural and construction equipment, aircraft and parts, medical and scientific 

equipment, environmental products, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, agrochemicals, and 

 7

 USTR, “Joint Communiqué of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance of the 

United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement,” July 14, 2011; USTR, “Brief Summary of the United 

States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement,” June 2007. 8

 USTR, Joint Communiqué of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance of the 

United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, July 14, 2011. 9

 Members of SACU are Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland. 

10 USTR, “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk on Japan’s Announcement,” November 

11, 2011; USTR, “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk on Announcements from Mexico and 

Canada,” November 13, 2011. 11 Pub. L. 112-43; Hornbeck, “The U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement,” October 27, 2011. 

12 White House, “U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” April 19, 2011; USTR, “U.S.-Panama 

Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011. For more information on CBERA, CBTPA, and the GSP, see 

chapter 2. 13 Hornbeck, “The U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement,” October 27, 2011. 
4-6 

TABLE 4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2011 

FTA partner(s) 

Negotiations 

launched 

Negotiations 

concluded 

Agreement signed 

by parties 

Date of entry 

into force 

Colombia May 18, 2004 Feb. 27, 2006 Nov. 22, 2006 May 15, 2012 

Panama Apr. 26, 2004 Dec. 19, 2006 June 28, 2007 – 

Korea Feb. 2, 2006 Apr. 1, 2007 June 30, 2007 March 15, 2012

Trans-Pacific Partnership (Australia, Brunei 

Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New 

Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) Dec. 14, 2009 – – – 

Source: USTR, various press releases, http://www.ustr.gov.

Note: No negotiations have taken place for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) since 2005; and for the 

Southern Africa Customs Union (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland), Ecuador, Thailand, and 

the United Arab Emirates since 2006. 

mineral fuels.14 U.S. textiles and apparel will also receive immediate duty-free access to 

Panama, subject to the “yarn forward” rule of origin. 15 The U.S.-Panama TPA also 

includes a textile-specific safeguard mechanism as a transitional measure that allows the 

United States to reimpose tariffs on certain goods if a surge in imports causes or threatens 

to cause serious damage to domestic U.S. producers.16 Panama has also agreed not to 

adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on imports of remanufactured goods.17

In 2011, less than 40 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Panama enjoyed duty-free 

access. The U.S.-Panama TPA will provide immediate duty-free treatment for 68 percent 

of Panama’s agricultural tariff lines, covering over one-half of U.S. agricultural trade 

with Panama.18 The phase-out period for tariffs on U.S. exports of agricultural products 

to Panama ranges up to a maximum of 20 years, but nearly all tariffs will be eliminated 

within 15 years (20 years for rice). Products receiving immediate duty-free treatment 

include high-quality beef, pork variety meats, frozen turkeys, sorghum, soybeans, 

soybean meal, crude soybean and corn oil, most fresh fruit and tree nuts, wheat, distilled 

spirits, peanuts, whey, cotton, and many agro-processed products. With respect to 

Panama’s agricultural exports to the United States, the FTA provides for immediate dutyfree treatment for 89 percent of U.S. agricultural tariff lines already duty free under the 

CBERA, covering 99 percent of the value of Panama’s agricultural exports to the United 

States.19

The U.S.-Panama TPA also provides for immediate duty-free treatment for certain 

quantities of U.S. agricultural products under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), including 

standard-grade beef cuts, chicken leg quarters, pork, corn, rice, dairy products, refined 

corn oil, kidney beans, frozen French fries, and tomato paste.20 Most of the TRQs will 

operate on a first-come, first-served basis. The U.S.-Panama TPA includes special 

 14 USTR, “U.S. Industrial Goods and Manufacturing in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” 

May 27, 2011; USTR, “Trade Agreements and Jobs,” October 3, 2011. 15 Requires the use of fabric and yarn produced either in Panama or the United States. USTR, 2011 

National Trade Estimate Report, March 2011, 282. 16 USTR, “U.S. Textiles and Apparel in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011. 

17 The USITC is currently conducting a study on remanufactured goods. See USITC, “Remanufactured 

Goods Trade to Be Focus of New USITC Study,” July 21, 2011. 18 USTR, “Agriculture in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011. 

19 USTR, “Agriculture in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011. 

20 USDA, FAS, “U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Benefits for Agriculture,” April 2011; 

USTR, “Agriculture in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011. 
4-7 

disciplines for Panamanian TRQs that will be administered through auctions or historical 

licenses, as well as a prohibition on the use of domestic-purchase requirements.21 The 

out-of-quota 40 percent tariff on corn will be phased out over 15 years, and the 90 

percent tariff on rice will be eliminated over a 20-year period. An agricultural safeguard 

measure will also be available for certain sensitive products, allowing for temporary tariff 

increases if import quantities exceed agreed trigger levels. Safeguards will no longer be 

allowed once tariff protection has been phased out.22

A number of significant commitments were included in the U.S.-Panama TPA related to 

non-tariff measures. Under the TPA, the United States gains: 23

x access to Panama’s $20.6 billion services market through commitments that 

exceed Panama’s WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 

commitments, including in priority areas such as financial, telecommunications, 

computer, distribution, express delivery, energy, environmental, and professional 

services; 

x an end to restrictions on foreigners holding certain professional licenses (doctors, 

accountants, optometrists, lawyers, and engineers); 

x greater IPR protection and easing of restrictions on the availability of generic 

drugs; 

x the elimination of restrictions on U.S. investment in retail trade, the right to offer 

U.S. portfolio management services to mutual funds and pension funds in 

Panama, with U.S. insurance suppliers able to establish a branch or a subsidiary; 

x nondiscriminatory treatment for U.S. companies bidding on government 

procurement contracts, including access to Panama’s more than $15 billion in 

canal expansion and other infrastructure projects; and 

x commitments to protect labor rights and the environment. 

The FTA also contains language to curb illicit financial transactions, tax evasion, and 

money laundering in Panama. On April 18, 2011, the Tax Information Exchange 

Agreement (TIEA) went into effect; this agreement brings Panama into compliance with 

OECD standards that prevent countries from becoming a tax haven. 24 The TIEA is 

intended to make the exchange of tax information between the United States and Panama 

more transparent.25

 21 USTR, “Agriculture in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011. 

22 Ibid. 

23 USTR Web site, “Key Facts of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” n.d. (accessed March 

14, 2012); USTR, “Services in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011; USTR, 

“Telecommunications in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011; USTR, “Intellectual 

Property Rights in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011; USTR, “Financial Services 

in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011; USTR, “Government Procurement in the 

U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011; USTR, “Environment in the U.S.-Panama Trade 

Promotion Agreement,” May 27, 2011; USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade 

Barriers, March 2012, 300. 24 USTR, “Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” n.d. (accessed March 14, 2012). 

25 USTR, “Tax Transparency in Panama,” n.d. (accessed March 14, 2012). 
4-8 

U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 

The United States and Colombia signed the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 

(CTPA) on November 22, 2006. The CTPA and a protocol agreement were approved by 

Colombia’s congress in 2007. 26 Four years later, on October 3, 2011, the President 

transmitted draft legislation to Congress to implement the agreement. The implementing 

legislation was approved by Congress on October 12, 2011, and signed into law by the 

President on October 21, 2011.27

The CTPA, which entered into force in 2012, replaces duty-free treatment extended to 

Colombia under ATPA, as amended by ATPDEA, and the GSP.28 Many U.S. imports 

from Colombia already entered the United States duty free under NTR. 

The CTPA provides immediate duty-free access to Colombian markets for more than 80 

percent of U.S. exports of consumer goods and industrial goods, with remaining tariffs 

being phased out over 10 years. For its non-free trade partners, Colombia maintained an 

average tariff on consumer and industrial goods that ranged between 7.4 percent and 14.6 

percent in 2011. Under the CTPA, U.S. manufactured products receiving immediate 

duty-free treatment include agricultural and construction equipment, aircraft and parts, 

motor vehicle parts, fertilizers and agrochemicals, information technology equipment, 

medical and scientific equipment, and wood.29 U.S. textiles and apparel also receive 

immediate duty-free access, subject to rules-of-origin requirements. Colombia has also 

agreed not to adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on imports of U.S. 

remanufactured goods.30

Under the CTPA, immediate duty-free treatment is given to more than one-half of U.S. 

agricultural exports entering Colombia, including wheat, barley, soybeans and soybean 

meal and flour, high-quality beef, bacon, almost all fruit and vegetable products, peanuts, 

whey, cotton, and the vast majority of agro-processed products. Colombia’s tariffs on 

nearly all remaining agricultural products will be phased out over a 15-year period. The 

CTPA also provides duty-free tariff-rate quotas on U.S. exports of standard beef, chicken 

leg quarters, dairy products, corn, sorghum, animal feeds, rice, and soybean oil. Upon 

entry into force of the agreement, Colombia immediately abolished its Andean Price 

Band Variable Duty System of variable tariffs, which adversely affected over 150 U.S. 

agricultural products, including corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, pork, poultry, cheese, and 

powdered milk.31

The CTPA also includes a number of significant commitments related to nontariff 

measures. Under the CTPA, the United States gains:32

 26 Villarreal, “The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” April 16, 2010, 8–9.

27 Pub. L. 112-42. The CTPA entered into force on May 15, 2012. “Proclamation 8818 of May 14, 

2012, to Implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and for Other Purposes,” 77 

Fed. Reg. 29519–29523 (May 18, 2012). 28 For more information on ATPA, as amended by ATPDEA, and the GSP, see chapter 2. 

29 USTR, “U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and Action Plan,” April 6, 2011. 

30 USTR, “United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Legislation and 

Supporting Documentation,” October 3, 2011. 31 USTR, “U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and Action Plan,” April 6, 2011. 

32 Ibid.; USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012, 105–

109.
4-9 

x access to Colombia’s $166 billion services market through commitments that 

exceed Colombia’s WTO GATS commitments; 

x a commitment to allow mutual funds and pension funds to seek advice from 

portfolio managers in the United States, allow U.S. banks to open branches in 

Colombia, and allow U.S. firms to supply international maritime shipping and 

commercial aviation insurance within four years of the CTPA’s entry into force; 

x greater IPR protection; 

x Colombia’s commitment to eliminate the breakpoints for imports of distilled 

spirits from the United States within four years of the CTPA’s entry into force;33

x establishment of a transparent, binding investor-state arbitration mechanism, as 

well as consent to allow 100 percent foreign ownership in most sectors on an 

equal footing to domestic investors, including land cargo transportation 

enterprises in Colombia; 

x access to procurement by Colombia’s ministries and departments, legislature, 

courts, and first-tier subcentral entities, as well as a number of Colombia’s stateowned enterprises; 

x Colombia’s agreement to join the WTO Information Technology Agreement, 

under which countries eliminate tariffs on an MFN basis for a wide range of 

information technology products; and 

x commitments to protect labor rights and the environment. 

In addition, on April 7, 2011, the United States and Colombia announced an Action Plan 

on Labor Rights. Under the plan, the Colombian government committed to a series of 

measures within defined time frames to improve the protection of internationally 

recognized labor rights, prevent violence against labor leaders, and prosecute the 

perpetrators of such violence.34 According to USTR, Colombia has met all of the Action 

Plan’s commitments to date.35

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement 

The United States and Korea began negotiations on a free trade agreement on February 2, 

2006, and concluded negotiations on April 1, 2007. Four years later, on October 3, 2011, 

the President transmitted draft legislation to Congress to implement the U.S.-Korea Free 

Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The implementing legislation was approved by 

Congress on October 12, 2011, and signed into law by the President on October 21, 

2011.36 The KORUS FTA was ratified by Korea’s National Assembly on November 22, 

2011.37 In December 2011, both governments began to review each other’s respective 

 33 Colombia assesses a consumption tax on alcoholic beverages through a system of specific rates per 

degree (percentage point) of alcohol strength. Arbitrary breakpoints have the effect of applying a lower tax 

rate to domestically produced spirits and therefore create a barrier for imported distilled spirits. 34 U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, “Baucus Leads Senate Passage,” October 11, 2011. 

35 USTR, “Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights,” June 13, 2011. 

36 Pub. L. 112-41. 

37 USTR, “Update on Implementation of Free Trade Agreements,” December 5, 2011. 
4-10 

laws and regulations to ensure their consistency with the provisions of the KORUS 

FTA.38

On December 10, 2010, modifications were made to the original agreement that included 

a new phase-out period for automobile tariffs. Korea committed to immediately cut its 

duties on U.S. automobile imports from 8 percent to 4 percent, and then to zero in the 

fifth year; to immediately eliminate its 10 percent tariff on U.S. trucks; and to 

immediately lower its tariff on electric cars and hybrids from 8 percent to 4 percent, and 

to zero after five years.39 The agreement also contains (1) a new special vehicle safeguard 

mechanism that allows the United States to reimpose tariffs on automobiles if a surge in 

imports causes or threatens to cause serious damage to domestic U.S. producers,40 (2) an 

obligation for Korea to increase the number of U.S. automobiles that can be imported 

under U.S. safety standards rather than under Korea’s safety standards, 41 (3) a 

requirement for Korea to overhaul its system for taxing automobiles based on engine 

displacement,42 and (4) an easing by Korea of the fuel consumption and greenhouse gas 

emission standards for U.S. vehicle exports. 

When the KORUS FTA entered into force in 2012, approximately 80 percent of Korea’s 

imports of U.S. consumer and industrial products became duty free immediately. Nearly 

95 percent will be duty free within 5 years, with most remaining tariffs being eliminated 

within 10 years. Duties were eliminated immediately on aerospace equipment, 

agricultural equipment, automobile parts, building products, chemicals, consumer goods, 

electrical equipment, environmental goods, all footwear and travel goods, paper products, 

scientific equipment, and shipping and transportation equipment. 43 Korean textile 

products will qualify for preferential treatment under the agreement if they use U.S. or 

Korean fabric and yarn (the yarn-forward rule). The agreement provides for reciprocal 

duty-free access immediately for most textile and apparel goods and contains a special 

textile safeguard that allows the United States to impose tariffs on textiles and apparel if 

injury occurs due to import surges.44

The KORUS FTA phases out tariffs on two-thirds (by value) of U.S. agricultural exports 

to Korea. Duties were eliminated immediately on wheat, corn for feed, soybeans for 

crushing, whey for feed use, hides and skins, cotton, cherries, pistachios, almonds, orange 

juice, grape juice, and wine. The KORUS FTA also requires Korea to eliminate its 40 

percent tariff on beef muscle meats imported from the United States over a 15-year 

 38 On March 15, 2012, the KORUS FTA entered into force. “Proclamation 8783 of March 6, 2012, to 

Implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement,” 77 Fed. Reg. 14265–67 (March 9, 2012). For 

more information, see the chapter 5 section on Korea. 39 USTR, “United States, Korea Set Date,” February 21, 2012. 

40 The United States is allowed to reinstate its 2.5 percent tariff on passenger cars if there are harmful 

surges in Korean auto imports due to the agreement. 41 The modifications increased the number of autos that U.S. automakers can export to Korea based on 

U.S. federal safety standards rather than certifying to Korean standards. The ceiling was raised from 6,500 

per U.S. automaker per year to as many as 25,000 cars per U.S. automaker per year. This includes foreignowned automakers with U.S.-based production if they export directly from the United States to Korea and 

meet the KORUS FTA domestic-content provisions. 42 Including the Special Consumption Tax, the Annual Vehicle Tax, and the Subway/Regional 

Development Bond. 43 USTR, “United States, Korea Set Date,” February 21, 2012. 

44 USTR, “Summary of the U.S.-Korea FTA,” April 18, 2009. 
4-11 

period, to remove its 25 percent tariff on 90 percent of U.S. pork product exports by 

2016, and to abolish its 22.5 percent tariff on other pork products within 10 years.45

The KORUS FTA also includes a number of commitments associated with nontariff 

measures: 

x agreement by Korea to liberalize its $580 billion services market beyond its 

WTO GATS commitments; 46

x enhanced regulatory transparency, standard-setting, technology neutrality, and 

customs administration in Korea; 

x creation of an independent body—a Medicines and Medical Devices 

Committee—to review recommendations and determinations on Korean pricing 

and government reimbursement for pharmaceuticals and medical devices; and 

x agreement to form a binational committee, one year after the KORUS FTA enters 

into force, to study the possibility of expanding the agreement’s coverage to 

products from “Outward Processing Zones,” including the Kaesong Industrial 

Complex and/or other future zones located in North Korea.47

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 

The United States and its TPP partners—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New 

Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam—concluded six formal rounds of 

negotiations during 2011, building on four rounds that had already been held. The TPP 

fifth round was held in February (in Santiago), the sixth round in March–April 

(Singapore), the seventh in June (Ho Chi Minh City), the eighth in September (Chicago), 

the ninth in October (Lima), and the 10th in December (Kuala Lumpur). TPP leaders also 

met on the margins of the APEC summit meeting in Honolulu on November 12, 2011. 

The fifth round of TPP negotiations was hosted by Chile from February 14 to 18 in 

Santiago. Following an exchange of initial tariff offers in January, negotiating teams 

began negotiations about goods in this round, agreeing to exchange lists of requests for 

improvements in the initial offers before the sixth round.48 TPP negotiators also agreed to 

exchange initial offers on services, investment, and government procurement before the 

next round. In addition, negotiating teams considered how best to develop a TPP rule of 

origin and agreed to exchange product-specific proposals for rules of origin before the 

sixth round. 

TPP partners also developed approaches to address new crosscutting (“horizontal”) issues 

to be incorporated into the agreement, including: 

x how to promote competitiveness and business facilitation, including how to 

better integrate regional production and supply chains between TPP countries; 

 45 USTR, “Jobs on the Way: U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement Enters into Force,” March 15, 2012. 

46 White House, “Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement,” December 

3, 2011. 47 Cooper et al., “The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade,” November 30, 2011. 

48 USTR, “Round 5: Santiago, Continued Progress,” February 18, 2011. 
4-12 

x how to promote the participation of small and medium-sized businesses in 

international trade; 

x how to enhance the coherence of the regulatory systems of the TPP countries to 

better facilitate trade; and 

x how to promote development.49

The sixth round was held from March 24 to April 1 in Singapore. Over 20 negotiating 

teams continued to consolidate texts reflecting different countries’ positions in nearly all 

areas covered by the agreement.50 New legal texts were introduced covering industrial 

goods, sanitary and phytosanitary issues, technical barriers to trade, and the environment. 

In addition, the United States offered for consideration a legal text on regulatory 

coherence for the first time ever in a trade negotiation.51 The text was intended to make 

TPP countries’ regulatory systems operate in a more consistent and integrated manner to 

avoid allowing regulatory barriers to become major impediments to trade.52

The seventh round of TPP negotiations was hosted by Vietnam from June 20 to 24 in Ho 

Chi Minh City. Countries addressed a wide range of issues, including agriculture, 

customs, the environment, government procurement, intellectual property, commitments 

to market access for industrial goods, investment, product-specific rules of origin, 

services, telecommunications, textiles, and transparency. The teams also worked to find 

common ground on the U.S. text on regulatory coherence, which was advanced during 

the sixth round.53

The eighth round of TPP negotiations was held from September 6 to 15 in Chicago. 

Negotiating teams sought to make progress on the legal texts of the 20 chapters of the 

agreement. Negotiators reported progress in a variety of areas including agriculture, 

customs, government procurement, the new crosscutting issues, industrial goods, 

intellectual property, investment, technical barriers to trade, telecommunications, and 

textile and apparel products.54

The ninth round of TPP negotiations was hosted by Peru from October 19 to 28 in Lima. 

Negotiators reported progress on the legal texts of the agreement, as well as on the new 

crosscutting issues. TPP negotiators agreed to move toward closure on a number of 

chapters following domestic consultations. 55 In addition to meeting collectively as a 

group, the United States and other TPP partners met bilaterally during the week to 

discuss issues concerning trade in goods, trade in services, and other areas.56 Teams also 

 49 Ibid. 

50 USTR, “Joint Statement from Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministers,” May 19, 2011; USTR, “Round 6: 

Singapore, Strong Sixth Round Progress Propels TPP Negotiations Forward,” April 1, 2011. 51 USTR, “Round 6: Singapore, Strong Sixth Round Progress,” April 1, 2011. 

52 USTR, “Round 7: Ho Chi Minh City, Steady Progress,” June 24, 2011. 

53 Ibid. 

54 USTR, “Round 8: Chicago, Final Readout,” September 15, 2011. According to USTR, market-access 

packages involved in these negotiations require agreement by each country in trade on some 11,000 tariff 

lines, as well as the rules of origin associated with them; trade and investment in services; and reciprocal 

access to each other’s government procurement markets. 55 USTR, “Round 9: Lima, TPP Negotiators Conclude Strong Ninth Round,” October 28, 2011. 

56 These subjects included cooperation and capacity building, customs, e-commerce, financial services, 

government procurement, horizontal issues, intellectual property rights, labor, legal issues, market access, 

rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, technical barriers to trade, telecommunications, and the 
4-13 

discussed a U.S. proposal on state-owned enterprises, intended to address distortions to 

trade and competition that result from government aid provided to these firms, as well as 

a U.S. proposal on labor. 

On November 12, TPP leaders met in Honolulu on the sidelines of the APEC Leaders’ 

Summit to evaluate progress made so far and consider possible next steps. TPP leaders 

presented a joint statement announcing the conclusion of a broad outline for the TPP 

agreement that they claim will boost trade and investment, promote innovation, increase 

economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs. TPP 

leaders endorsed a report from TPP trade ministers that identified five features of the 

agreement that will both make it “historic” and establish it as the “new standard” for 

future trade agreements. Those features included provisions to ensure:57

x comprehensive market access, by eliminating tariffs and other barriers to goods 

and services trade and investment; 

x a fully regional agreement, which will facilitate the development of production 

and supply chains among TPP members; 

x that the agreement builds on work being done in APEC and other forums by 

incorporating four new, crosscutting issues: (a) regulatory coherence, (b) supply 

chain competitiveness and business facilitation, (c) small and medium-sized 

enterprises, and (d) economic development; 

x that the agreement responds to new trade challenges, by promoting trade and 

investment in innovative products and services, including in the digital economy 

and green technologies, and ensured a competitive business environment across 

the TPP region; and 

x that the agreement is a living document, allowing parties to update it as 

appropriate to address issues that will arise from emerging trade trends as well as 

from the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.58

On November 11, at the APEC Leaders’ Summit, Japan, Mexico, and Canada formally 

announced their intentions to begin consultations with TPP partners toward joining the 

TPP negotiations. The United States and other TPP countries welcomed their interest, and 

conveyed that potential new entrants must be able to meet the TPP’s high standards for 

liberalizing trade and to address specific issues of concern to the United States regarding 

barriers to agriculture, manufactures including nontariff measures, services, intellectual 

property rights protection, and investment.59

The 10th round of TPP negotiations was hosted by Malaysia from December 5 to 9 in 

Kuala Lumpur. Negotiating groups met collectively to address rules of origin, services, 

investment, and intellectual property, while other teams met bilaterally to negotiate tariff 

packages on industrial goods, agriculture, and textiles.60

 temporary entry of services personnel. USTR, “Round 9: Lima, TPP Negotiators Conclude Strong Ninth 

Round,” October 28, 2011. 57 USTR, “Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Ministers’ Report to Leaders,” November 12, 2011. 

58 Ibid. 

59 USTR, “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk on Announcements from Mexico and 

Canada,” November 13, 2011; USTR, “U.S., Japan Hold High-Level Consultation,” February 7, 2012. 60 USTR, “Round 10: Kuala Lumpur, Additional Strides Made,” December 9, 2011. 
4-14 

In 2011, the value of U.S. merchandise exports to its eight TPP partners increased by 

18.1 percent to $95.6 billion compared to the previous year (table 4.4). U.S. exports were 

dominated by heavy and light fuel oil, civil aircraft and parts, electronic integrated 

circuits, motor vehicles, parts for boring and sinking machines, medicaments 

(pharmaceutical products), parts of airplanes or helicopters, nonmonetary gold, optical 

and medical instruments, and telecommunications equipment. U.S. merchandise imports 

from TPP countries increased by 11.3 percent to $90.7 billion in 2011 compared to 2010. 

U.S. imports from these markets included telecommunications equipment, electronic 

integrated circuits, computers and peripherals, parts of office machines, wooden bedroom 

furniture, sweaters and pullovers, copper, meat, organic chemicals, and wine. In 2011, the 

United States had a trade surplus of $5.0 billion with its TPP partners, following deficits 

in 2009 and 2010. If concluded, this trade agreement would be the second largest after 

NAFTA in terms of total trade covered, measuring about 19 percent of the value of total 

two-way merchandise trade between the United States and its NAFTA partners in 2011. 

North American Free Trade Agreement61

The North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico entered into force on January 1, 1994. All of the agreement’s provisions were 

implemented by January 1, 2008, with the exception of the NAFTA cross-border trucking 

provisions.62 In 2011, total two-way (exports plus imports) U.S. merchandise trade with 

its NAFTA partners increased by 15.5 percent over 2010, with U.S.-Canada merchandise 

trade amounting to $550.2 billion and U.S.-Mexico merchandise trade totaling $422.6 

billion (table 4.1). The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with NAFTA partners rose to 

$185.4 billion in 2011 from $166.8 billion in the previous year—an increase of 11.1 

percent, in contrast to an increase of 35.1 percent in 2010. Leading products responsible 

for the deficit in 2011 included mineral fuels, motor vehicles and parts thereof, electrical 

machinery, and machinery and mechanical appliances. 

The following sections describe the major activities of NAFTA’s Free Trade Commission 

(FTC), Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC), and Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation (CEC), as well as the dispute settlement activities under NAFTA Chapters 

11 and 19 during 2011. 

Free Trade Commission 

The FTC is NAFTA’s central oversight body. It is chaired jointly by trade representatives 

or their designees from the three member countries. 63 The FTC is responsible for 

overseeing NAFTA’s implementation and elaboration, as well as for its dispute 

settlement provisions.64

 61 U.S. bilateral trade relations with Canada and Mexico are described in chapter 5 of this report. 

62 The section on Mexico in chapter 5 discusses NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions. Further 

information on the last remaining restrictions on U.S.-Mexico trade, which were removed on January 1, 2008, 

is given in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, 2009, 5-16. 63 The representatives are the USTR, Canadian Minister for International Trade, and Mexican Secretary 

of the Economy. 64 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 129. 
4-15 

TABLE 4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with TPP partners,a 2009–11 

Trade with TPP partners 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

2010–11 

 Millions of $ 

U.S. exports 65,241 81,007 95,636 18.1 

U.S. imports 72,064 81,471 90,691 11.3 

Trade balance –6,823 –463 4,945 (b

)

Source: USDOC. 

a Current negotiating partners include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, 

Singapore, and Vietnam. b

 Not meaningful.

At its meeting in January 2011 in Mexico City, the FTC noted that because all tariff cuts 

under NAFTA were implemented either on time or ahead of schedule, the three countries 

“are developing new and creative ways to increase trade”65 by reducing transaction costs, 

eliminating nontariff barriers to trade, and facilitating access to information. According to 

the FTC’s joint statement released after the meeting, “These steps aim to make North 

America one of the most economically competitive regions in the world.”66

At the meeting, the FTC tasked the relevant NAFTA committees, including the 

Committees on Standards-Related Measures and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, to 

continue their work and identify more areas for further cooperation. The FTC reaffirmed 

its commitment to enter into mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) that will allow a 

manufacturer to test a product only once and then have the test results accepted in the 

other two NAFTA partner countries. In addition, the FTC initialed the basic terms of two 

bilateral MRAs for telecommunications equipment; 67 the United States and Mexico 

signed their MRA in May 2011, while Canada and Mexico signed a similar agreement in 

November 2011.68 The FTC agreed that Canada will host the next NAFTA FTC meeting. 

On May 19, 2010, the presidents of the United States and Mexico “directed the creation 

of a High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) to identify areas of mutual 

interest for regulatory cooperation” that are intended to improve commerce and 

competitiveness in North America.69 In September, senior officials from the U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget and the Mexican Secretariat of the Economy co-chaired the 

first meeting of the HLRCC to discuss cooperation on key issues that affect both 

countries. Recognizing that some regulatory challenges require trilateral cooperation 

among the NAFTA countries, North American regulatory cooperation will be conducted 

under the U.S-Mexico HLRCC, the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, and 

 65 USTR, “Joint Statement from the January 10, 2011 Meeting,” January 10, 2011. 

66 Ibid. 

67 The MRA established procedures to accept test results from laboratories or testing facilities in the 

territory of another NAFTA country for use in the conformity assessment of telecommunications equipment. 

USTR, “Joint Statement from the January 10, 2011 Meeting,” January 10, 2011. 68 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 129–130; USTR, “New 

U.S.-Mexico Telecommunications Agreement Will Ease Burdens,” May 26, 2011; Government of Canada, 

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Canada Signs Telecommunications Cooperation 

Agreement with Mexico,” November 13, 2011. 69 White House, “Fact Sheet: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation,” March 3, 2012. 
4-16 

“other forums deemed appropriate by all three governments, including existing NAFTA 

committees on Standard Related Measures and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.”70

On March 3, 2011, the United States and Mexico announced the terms of reference for 

the HLRCC, which included six major goals: making regulations more compatible and 

simple; increasing regulatory transparency; promoting public participation; improving the 

analysis of regulations; linking regulatory cooperation to improve border-crossing and 

customs procedures; and increasing technical cooperation.71 Next, the HLRCC will create 

a work plan to implement these goals.72

Commission for Labor Cooperation

The CLC, comprising a ministerial council and an administrative secretariat, was 

established under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), a 

supplemental agreement to NAFTA that aims to promote effective enforcement of 

domestic labor laws and foster transparency in their administration. The CLC is 

responsible for implementing the NAALC. Each NAFTA partner has established a 

national administrative office (NAO) within its labor ministry to serve as the contact 

point with the other parties, the Secretariat, with other government agencies, and the 

public. In the United States, that office is the Division of Trade Agreement 

Administration and Technical Cooperation (TAATC) within the Department of Labor.73

Another NAO function is to receive and respond to public communications on labor law 

matters arising in another NAALC country. Each NAO establishes its own domestic 

procedures for reviewing and responding to public communications. The NAOs and the 

secretariat also carry out the cooperative activities of the CLC, including seminars, 

conferences, joint research projects, and technical assistance.74

In 2011, the CLC released a report “Migrant Workers’ Rights in North America: 

Comparative Guides to Labor and Employment Laws in North America.”75

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

The CEC was established under the North American Agreement on Environmental 

Cooperation (NAAEC), a supplemental agreement to NAFTA designed to ensure that 

trade liberalization and efforts to protect the environment are mutually supportive. The 

CEC oversees the mandate of the NAAEC and is composed of (1) the Council—the 

governing body of the CEC—made up of the environmental ministers from the United 

 70 White House, “Terms of Reference for the High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council,” March 3, 

2011. 71 Ibid. 

72 On February 28, 2012, the White House announced the HLRCC’s Work Plan, which “identifies a 

number of areas of mutual interest—food, transportation, nanotechnology, e-health, oil and gas, and 

conformity assessment—and outlines activities to be carried out by the United States and Mexico over a 

period of two years.” White House, Office of Management and Budget, “Supporting U.S. Economic Growth,” 

February 28, 2012. 73 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, “Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation” (accessed 

April 4, 2012). 74 CLC, “The National Administrative Offices,” (accessed April 4, 2012). 

75 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2011, 130; CLC, Migrant 

Workers’ Rights in North America, 2011. 
4-17 

States, Canada, and Mexico;76 (2) the Joint Public Advisory Committee, made up of five 

private citizens from each of the NAFTA parties; and (3) the Secretariat, located in 

Montreal. The Secretariat is composed of professional staff that carry out initiatives and 

conduct research on topics pertaining to the North American environment, environmental 

law, and environmental standards, as well as processing citizen submissions on 

enforcement matters.77

Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC provide citizens and nongovernmental organizations 

with a mechanism to help enforce environmental laws in the NAFTA countries. Article 

14 governs alleged violations submitted for review by the CEC. It sets forth guidelines 

regarding criteria for submissions and parties that can file complaints. Article 15 outlines 

the Secretariat’s obligations in considering the submissions and publishing findings in the 

factual record.78 At the end of 2011, 12 complaint files remained active under Articles 14 

and 15, 3 of which were submitted in 2011 (table 4.5). During 2011, 1 active file 

involved the United States, 5 involved Canada, and 6 involved Mexico. 

At the 18th regular session of the CEC Council on June 22, 2011, in Montreal, the CEC 

Council considered a cooperative work plan for 2011–12 to address the CEC’s main 

priorities—promoting healthy communities and ecosystems; addressing climate change 

by moving to a low-carbon economy; and working with partners in the private sector to 

green North America’s economy. The CEC directed $1.4 million of the CEC budget to 

fund the North American Partnership for Environmental Community Action to support 

communities in their efforts to locally address environmental problems across North 

America.79

In November 1993, the United States and Mexico agreed on arrangements to help border 

communities with environmental infrastructure projects to further the goals of NAFTA 

and the NAAEC. The Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the 

North American Development Bank (NADB) are working with communities throughout 

the U.S.-Mexico border region to address their environmental infrastructure needs.80 As 

of December 31, 2011, the NADB has contracted a cumulative total of approximately 

 $1.3 billion in loans and grants to help finance 152 projects certified by the BECC with 

an estimated total cost of $3.3 billion to build. Of those funds, a total of $1.2 billion has 

already been disbursed.81

Dispute Settlement

The dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA Chapters 11 and 19 cover a variety of 

areas.82 The sections below describe developments during 2011 in NAFTA Chapter 11 

investor-state disputes and Chapter 19 binational reviews of final determinations of 

antidumping and countervailing cases. Appendix table A.22 presents an overview of 

 76 The CEC Council consists of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Canadian 

Environment Minister, and Mexican Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources. 77 CEC, Secretariat, “Commission for Environmental Cooperation,” n.d. (accessed April 5, 2012). 

78 CEC, “Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters,” n.d. (accessed April 5, 2012). 

79 CEC, “CEC Ministerial Statement, 2011: Eighteenth Regular Session,” June 22, 2011. 

80 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2011, 130. 81 BECC and NADB, Quarterly Status Report, December 31, 2011; NADB, “Summary of Project 

Implementation Activities: Active Projects,” December 31, 2011. 82 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” (accessed April 6, 2012). 
4-18 

TABLE 4.5 Active files as of yearend 2011 under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation 

Name Case First filed Countrya

 Status 

Lake Chapala II SEM-03-003 May 23, 

2003 

Mexico The Secretariat posted a request for information relevant to 

the factual record on its Web site on September 4, 

2008. 

Coal-fired 

Power 

Plants 

SEM-04-005 Sept. 20, 

2004 

United 

States

The Secretariat posted a request for information relevant to 

the factual record on its Web site on September 15, 

2008. 

Quebec

Automobiles 

SEM-04-007 Nov. 3, 

2004 

Canada The Secretariat received comments from Mexico and 

Canada on May 5 and 20 of 2011, respectively. 

Environment

al Pollution 

in Hermosillo 

II

SEM-05-003 Aug. 30, 

2005 

Mexico The Secretariat informed the Council on April 4, 2007, 

that the Secretariat considers that the submission 

warrants development of a factual record. 

Ex Hacienda 

El Hospital II 

SEM-06-003 July 17, 

2006 

Mexico The Secretariat informed the Council on May 12, 2008, 

that the Secretariat considers that the submission 

warrants development of a factual record. 

Ex Hacienda 

El Hospital 

III 

SEM-06-004 Sept. 22, 

2006 

Mexico The Secretariat informed the Council on May 12, 2008, 

that the Secretariat considers that the submission 

warrants development of a factual record. 

Wetlands in 

Manzanillo 

SEM-09-002 Feb. 4, 

2009 

Mexico The Secretariat received a response from the concerned 

government party and began considering on October 

12, 2010, whether to recommend a factual record. 

Alberta

Tailings 

Ponds 

SEM-10-002 Apr. 13, 

2010 

Canada The Secretariat received a revised submission and began 

to analyze it on October 1, 2010. 

Iona

Wastewater 

Treatment 

SEM-10-003 May 7, 

2010 

Canada The Secretariat determined that the submission met the 

criteria of Article 14(1) and requested a response from 

the concerned government party on December 16, 

2011, in accordance with Article 14(2). 

PCB Treatment 

in GrandesPiles, Quebec 

SEM-11-001 Jan. 11, 

2011 

Canada The Secretariat received a revised submission and began a 

preliminary analysis of it on March 7, 2011. 

Sumidero

Canyon II 

SEM-11-002 Nov. 29, 

2011 

Mexico The Secretariat received a submission and began a 

preliminary analysis of it under the guidelines. 

Protection of 

Polar Bears 

SEM-11-003 Dec. 5, 

2011 

Canada The Secretariat received a submission and began a 

preliminary analysis of it under the guidelines. 

Source: CEC, “Submission on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions.” 

a Refers to the country against which an allegation was filed. 
4-19 

developments in NAFTA Chapter 19 dispute settlement cases to which the United States 

was a party in 2011. 

Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Developments

Chapter 11 of NAFTA includes provisions designed to protect cross-border investors and 

ease the settlement of investment disputes. An investor who alleges that a NAFTA 

country has breached its investment obligations under Chapter 11 may pursue arbitration 

through internationally recognized channels or remedies available in the host country’s 

domestic courts.83 A key feature of the Chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability 

in domestic courts of final awards made by arbitration tribunals.84

In 2011, there was one active Chapter 11 case filed against the United States by Canadian 

investors;85 five filed by U.S. investors against Canada;86 and three filed by U.S. investors 

against Mexico.87

Chapter 19 Dispute Panel Reviews 

Chapter 19 of NAFTA contains a mechanism that provides for a binational panel to 

review final determinations made by national investigating authorities in antidumping 

and countervailing duty cases. Such a panel serves as an alternative to judicial review by 

domestic courts and may be established at the request of any involved NAFTA country.88

At the end of 2011, the NAFTA Secretariat listed nine binational panels active under 

Chapter 19 (table 4.6). Two of the three binational panels formed in 2011 under Chapter 

19 challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations on products from Mexico, and the third 

challenged the Mexican agency’s determination on products from the United States. 

Eight of the active cases challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations.89

 83 Internationally recognized arbitral mechanisms include the International Centre for the Settlement of 

Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank, ICSID’s Additional Facility Rules, and the rules of the 

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Rules). 84 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” n.d. (accessed April 6, 2012). 

85 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada,” n.d. 

(accessed April 6, 2012); NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed against 

the Government of the United States of America,” n.d. (accessed April 6, 2012). 86 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against Canada”; NAFTA Secretariat, 

Canadian Section, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada,” n.d. (accessed 

April 6, 2012). 87 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican States”; 

NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed against the Government of the 

United Mexican States,” n.d. (accessed April 6, 2012). 88 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” n.d. (accessed April 6, 2012). 

89 NAFTA Secretariat, “NAFTA—Chapter 19 Active Cases,” n.d. (accessed April 6, 2012). 
4-20 

TABLE 4.6 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of the end of 2011 

Petitioning countrya Case number 

Challenged national agencies' 

final determinationb Case title 

Mexico 

 MEX-USA-2011-1904-01 SE Countervailing Duty Acido Esteárico 

United States 

 USA-CDA-2008-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod 

 USA-CDA-2009-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod 

 USA-MEX-2007-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in 

Coils 

 USA-MEX-2008-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in 

Coils 

 USA-MEX-2009-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in 

Coils 

 USA-MEX-2010-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in 

Coils 

 USA-MEX-2011-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in 

Coils 

 USA-MEX-2011-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe 

and Tube 

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Dispute Settlements Proceedings.”

a The United States filed the first case contesting Mexico’s determination, Canada filed the next two cases 

contesting U.S. determinations, and Mexico filed the remaining cases. b In Canada, final dumping and subsidy determinations are made by the Canada Border Services Agency, and 

injury determinations are made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. In Mexico, all determinations are 

made by the Secretary of Economy (SE). In the United States, dumping and subsidy determinations are made by 

the USDOC, and injury determinations are made by the USITC. NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute 

Settlement Provisions.” 
5-1 

CHAPTER 5 

U.S. Relations with Major Trading Partners 

This chapter reviews U.S. bilateral trade relations with 10 selected trading partners during 

2011: the European Union (EU), Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Brazil, Taiwan, India, and Russia (ordered by value of two-way merchandise 

trade). Appendix tables A.23 and A.24 show U.S. trade with its top 15 single-country 

trading partners in 2011. 

European Union

The EU as a unit1 is the largest two-way (exports and imports) U.S. trading partner in 

terms of both goods and services. The value of U.S. merchandise trade with the EU rose 

13.4 percent in 2011 to $603.5 billion, accounting for 17.4 percent of total U.S. trade. In 

2011, U.S.-EU trade had still not recovered to the level recorded in 2008 ($614.9 billion), 

just before the global economic downturn. The rate of growth of U.S. imports from the 

EU matched the growth rate of total U.S. imports in 2011. U.S. exports to the EU, 

however, grew at a slower pace because of the sovereign debt crisis and slow growth in 

the EU (just 1.6 percent in 2011).2

 As a result, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the 

EU climbed $23.8 billion to $121.3 billion in 2011, the highest level since 2007 (figure 

5.1). On the other hand, the U.S. trade surplus in services with the EU was $50.8 billion 

in 2011, up $7.1 billion from 2010 (figure 5.2); the EU accounted for 33.4 percent of U.S. 

trade in services in 2011.3

U.S. merchandise exports to the EU increased 10.9 percent in 2011 to $241.1 billion. 

Leading U.S. exports included aircraft and parts thereof, petroleum-related products, 

certain medicaments (pharmaceutical products), nonmonetary gold, coal, and passenger 

FIGURE 5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2007–11a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

 1

 The 27 members of the EU in 2011 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the 

United Kingdom. 2

 IMF, World Economic Outlook April 2012, April 2012, table 1.1, 2. 3

 The United Kingdom was the largest single-country U.S. trading partner in services in 2010. 

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

50

100

150

200

250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-2 

motor vehicles. Among top exports, the most notable increases by value were in 

petroleum-related products, precious metal waste and scrap, coal, and motor vehicles. 

U.S. merchandise imports from the EU increased more strongly in 2011, rising 15.1 

percent to $362.4 billion. Leading U.S. imports included certain medicaments, 

petroleum-related products, passenger motor vehicles, and nucleic acids and their salts. 

Among the top imports, the largest increases were recorded for machines for 

semiconductor manufacturing, human blood, and petroleum-related products. U.S.-EU 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.25 through A.27. 

A major focus of the U.S.-EU trade relationship in 2011 was the work of the 

Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), an intergovernmental organization that aims to 

facilitate bilateral trade and investment. There were also developments in several WTO 

dispute settlement cases involving the United States and the EU in 2011, including two 

disputes involving U.S. and EU complaints about each other’s measures affecting trade in 

large civil aircraft (see chapter 3 and appendix table A.21). In May 2011, the United 

States lifted additional duties that had been imposed in 1999 in connection with a longstanding WTO dispute over an EU ban on meat treated with growth-promoting hormones 

(DS26).4

Transatlantic Economic Council

The TEC is a cabinet-level organization that was created at the U.S.-EU Summit in April 

2007 to oversee and guide efforts to lower barriers to trade and investment between the 

United States and the EU. It seeks to identify and cooperate on a broad range of issues to 

strengthen transatlantic integration and promote growth.5

 A major focus of the TEC is to 

develop joint transatlantic approaches in the area of regulations and standards.6

 The TEC 

also aims to build bilateral cooperation on global economic challenges and approaches 

with third countries;7

 e.g., protection of IPR in third countries and promotion of open, 

nondiscriminatory investment policies in third countries. During 2011, the TEC made 

progress on a number of areas in its work plan, as described below. It held its annual 

meeting on November 29, 2011, one day after leaders met at the annual U.S.-EU Summit. 

At the 2011 U.S.-EU Summit, leaders tasked the TEC to establish a joint High Level 

Working Group on Jobs and Growth. The purpose of the working group is to identify 

policies and measures that can increase U.S.-EU trade and investment in order to support 

mutually beneficial job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness. On 

January 11, 2012, the USTR issued a Federal Register notice requesting comments on 

options for increasing bilateral trade and investment.8

 These options could cover a range 

of possibilities, such as enhanced regulatory cooperation, a comprehensive free trade 

agreement, negotiation of a zero-tariff agreement, or negotiation of bilateral agreements 

on services and investment.9

 The working group is to provide an interim update to the 

TEC in June 2012 and a final report with findings and recommendations at the end of 

2012. 

 4

 76 Fed. Reg. 30987 (May 27, 2011). For more information, see chapter 2, Section 301, of this report; 

USITC, The Year in Trade, 2009, 5-5 to 5-6. 5

 USDOS, “About the Transatlantic Economic Council,” n.d. (accessed February 9, 2012); White 

House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Transatlantic Economic Council: Readout,” November 30, 2011. 6

 De Gucht, “Going Global: EU Trade Relations,” October 6, 2011. 

7

 Ibid. 

8

 77 Fed. Reg. 1778 (January 11, 2012). 

9

 77 Fed. Reg. 1778 (January 11, 2012); Ahearn, “U.S.-EU Trade and Economic Relations,” January 

18, 2012. 
5-3 

During 2011, the U.S.-EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum (HLRCF), a 

working group under the TEC umbrella, adopted the “Common Understanding on 

Regulatory Principles and Best Practices,” which details best practices when proposing, 

modifying, or evaluating existing regulatory measures, such as transparency of the 

regulatory process and public participation. 10 The HLRCF also issued a joint 

understanding on “Building Bridges between the U.S. and the EU Standards Systems,” 

which is meant to create new mechanisms to promote cooperation, collaboration, and 

coherence in standardization. The aim is to minimize unnecessary regulatory divergences 

and to better align the U.S. and EU approaches to regulation.11

The TEC made progress on regulatory cooperation via several sectoral initiatives. In 

particular, the TEC endorsed a joint work program for electric vehicles and related 

infrastructure, which aims to develop compatible standards for electric vehicles and smart 

grids, which can then be promoted in relevant international forums. The electrical vehicle 

work program also calls for joint research and pilot projects.12 In addition, the TEC 

decided to intensify cooperation in emerging technologies and innovative sectors, such as 

nanotechnology, cloud computing, and biobased products, to find joint approaches to 

emerging regulatory issues and avoid unintended barriers to trade.13 In the margins of the 

annual TEC meeting, the two sides initialed a new agreement on Energy Star certification 

of office equipment, including computer and imaging equipment. This agreement 

succeeds a 2006 agreement that expired at the end of 2011. Energy Star is a voluntary 

labeling program that promotes the use of energy-efficient products and practices.14

In April 2011, U.S. and EU officials announced agreement on 10 regulatory principles for 

trade in information and communication technology (ICT) services; both parties are to 

implement and promote these principles in trade negotiations with third countries. The 

principles include the transparency of laws and regulations, open networks for both 

consumers and the suppliers of services, free cross-border information flows, open 

investment, and avoidance of preferential treatment to national suppliers of ICT 

services.15

With respect to raw materials, the TEC agreed to a work program for cooperation, 

including coordinating with international organizations (e.g., the OECD and WTO) and 

with third countries to limit export duties and other export restraints on raw materials. 

The work plan also addresses the sustainable supply of raw materials. It calls for the two 

sides to create a joint inventory of raw materials data and analysis, including studies on 

resource availability and trade flows; to increase dialogue on sustainable materials 

management, including resource efficiency and recycling of materials, such as electronic 

 10 United States-European Commission, High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum, “Common 

Understanding on Regulatory Principles and Best Practices,” June 2011. 11 United States-European Commission, High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum, “Building Bridges 

between the U.S. and EU Standards Systems,” November 2011. 12 USDOS, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Transatlantic Economic Council: Annexes,” 

November 29, 2011; European Commission, “EU and US Boost Economic Partnership,” November 29, 2011. 13 White House, “Transatlantic Economic Council: Joint Statement,” November 30, 2011; European 

Commission, “EU and US Boost Economic Partnership,” November 29, 2011; USDOS, Bureau of European 

and Eurasian Affairs, “Transatlantic Economic Council: Annexes to the TEC Joint Statement,” November 29, 

2011. 14 European Commission, “EU and US Boost Economic Partnership,” November 29, 2011; USDOS, 

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Transatlantic Economic Council: Annexes,” November 29, 2011. 15 USDOS, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “European Union-United States Trade 

Principles,” April 4, 2011. 
5-4 

waste (used electronics); 16 to continue cooperation on research on raw material 

technologies; and to explore ways of increasing bilateral dialogue on the problem of 

illegal shipments of waste. 17

To enhance cooperation in support of trade and investment by small and medium-sized 

enterprises (SMEs), two conferences were held under the auspices of the TEC on SME 

best practices in 2011. These conferences covered such topics as the reduction of trade 

barriers affecting SMEs, regulatory cooperation, access to finance, and support for 

SMEs’ access to export markets.18 Based on discussions at these conferences, the two 

governments plan to conduct joint SME trade promotion activities, explore opportunities 

for linking SME regional innovation clusters between the United States and the EU, 

exchange information and best practices with respect to programs that provide counseling 

and training to SME entrepreneurs, exchange information and experiences relating to 

SME finance, and conduct periodic meetings on trade and other topics of particular 

relevance to SMEs.19

The Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Investment was formed in August 2011 

and held its first meeting in October to address bilateral, third-country, and global 

investment policy developments. The two sides plan to consult regularly to coordinate 

their respective efforts to ensure that international investment agreements meet high 

standards. The working group will also coordinate approaches to major investment policy 

challenges in third countries, such as regulatory transparency and legal certainty, as well 

as worldwide, including issues related to increasing state control and influence in the 

global economy. The working group is currently developing a list of shared investment 

principles (for example, strong investor protections, meaningful market access, and 

independent international dispute settlement) to observe bilaterally as well as to promote 

with third countries in developing investment policy in the future.20

In the area of supply chain security, in 2011 the United States and EU completed 

preparatory work on mutual recognition of customs trade partnership programs.21 These 

programs aim to lower costs for certified businesses and shippers through faster and 

simpler customs procedures. Once both sides sign the mutual recognition agreement, it is 

expected to be implemented about July 2012.22

Canada

In 2011, Canada remained the United States’ largest single-country trading partner, 

accounting for 15.8 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade (exports plus imports). U.S. 

merchandise trade with Canada was $550.2 billion in 2011, an increase of 14.3 percent 

 16 The USITC is currently conducting an investigation in response to a request from USTR examining 

U.S. exports of used electronic products. USITC, “U.S. Exports of Used Electronic Products Will be Focus of 

New USITC Study,” January 30, 2012. 17 USDOS, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Transatlantic Economic Council: Annexes,” 

November 29, 2011. 18 European Commission, “European Union-United States SME Best Practices,” June 28–29, 2011. 

19 USTR, “Joint Report to the TEC Co-Chairs,” November 11, 2011. 

20 USDOS, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Transatlantic High Level Working Group on 

Investment,” August 5, 2011; USDOS, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Transatlantic Economic 

Council: Annexes,” November 29, 2011. 21 These programs are the Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism program in the United States 

and the Authorized Economic Operator program in the EU. 22 USDOS, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Transatlantic Economic Council: Annexes,” 

November 29, 2011; European Commission, “EU and US Boost Economic Partnership,” November 29, 2011. 
5-5 

over 2010. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Canada increased 18.7 percent to 

$82.6 billion in 2011, up from $69.6 billion in 2010 (figure 5.3). At the same time, the 

U.S. trade surplus with Canada in private services increased, from $24.9 billion in 2010 

to $28.1 billion in 2011 (figure 5.4). Canada is the United States’ second-largest singlecountry trading partner in services, after the United Kingdom. 

U.S. merchandise exports to Canada increased 13.5 percent during the year, from $206.0 

billion in 2010 to $233.8 billion in 2011. Leading exports to Canada in 2011 were 

transport and passenger motor vehicles and related parts, which made up about 13.3 

percent of total U.S. merchandise exports to Canada in 2011, and fuels, such as crude and 

refined petroleum and natural gas, which accounted for another 5.8 percent of U.S. goods 

exports. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada increased 14.8 percent over the same 

period, from $275.5 billion in 2010 to $316.4 billion in 2011. Leading U.S. imports from 

Canada in 2011 were energy products, such as petroleum oil, propane, natural gas, and 

electrical energy, roughly one-third of total U.S. goods imports from Canada, and 

passenger motor vehicles and related parts and accessories, 13.6 percent of U.S. imports 

from Canada. U.S.-Canada merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.28 

through A.30. 

The United States and Canada share the world’s largest and most comprehensive bilateral 

trading relationship. Since 1994, overall trade between the countries has operated within 

the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA has reduced trade barriers and liberalized 

trade rules in a wide variety of areas––agriculture, industrial goods, services, energy, 

investment, and government procurement––as well as provided an institutional structure 

through which to settle a variety of disputes between the three partners. Canada is the 

single largest foreign supplier of energy to the United States, and the United States is 

Canada’s largest foreign investor.23

In 2011, trade relations with Canada included actions involving the 2006 U.S.-Canada 

Softwood Lumber Agreement, IPR protection and legislation, and the 2010 U.S.-Canada 

Agreement on Government Procurement, which are discussed below. 

FIGURE 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada,

 2007–11a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a

Data for 2011 are preliminary.

 23 USDOS, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Background Note: Canada, December 22, 2011. 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-6 

Softwood Lumber 

In 1996, the United States and Canada signed the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber 

Agreement (SLA), designed to ensure a stable supply of Canadian lumber exports to the 

United States market through the establishment of a trigger-price import quota system.24

The 1996 SLA expired in March 2001. In 2006, the United States and Canada signed a 

second SLA, which entered into force on October 12, 2006. The 2006 SLA was to remain 

in force for seven years (to 2013), with the possibility of extension for two more years if 

agreed by the parties. 

Following discussions in 2011, the two parties agreed to extend the 2006 SLA well in 

advance of its scheduled expiration date to maintain predictability and stability in the 

lumber sector. On January 23, 2012, the United States and Canada signed a two-year 

extension of the agreement, which continues the SLA with no changes. The 2006 SLA is 

now set to expire on October 12, 2015.25

SLA Arbitration

Under the SLA, disputes between the parties regarding interpretation and implementation 

of the agreement are to be brought to arbitration before the London Court of International 

Arbitration, now known as the LCIA. Under the agreement, there is no appeal from a 

decision of an LCIA dispute tribunal. Under the 2006 SLA, the United States has brought 

three disputes concerning implementation of the agreement. 

The first arbitration case––concerning export measures––was brought by the United 

States in 2007. The United States claimed that Canada failed during the first six months 

of 2007 to calculate export quotas correctly for softwood lumber originating from the 

provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. In 2008, the arbitration 

tribunal determined that Canada had failed to properly calculate its quotas under the 

terms of the agreement. In 2009, the tribunal directed Canada to adjust its export quotas 

to collect an additional C$68.26 million (approximately US$54.80 million at the time of 

the award, according to the USTR) in export charges. At first Canada failed to do so by 

the date set by the tribunal, but starting September 1, 2010, Canada began charging a 10 

percent ad valorem export charge on softwood lumber destined for the United States in 

accordance with the 2009 tribunal decision.26 Canada later notified the tribunal that the 

full amount had been collected, and stopped applying the additional duties in July 2011.27

The second arbitration case––concerning provincial subsidies––was brought by the 

United States in 2008, claiming that technical assistance programs put in place by the 

provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario provided benefits to Canadian softwood 

lumber producers that circumvented the agreement. On January 21, 2011, the tribunal 

found that a number of provincial assistance programs in Quebec and Ontario did breach 

the terms of the SLA, and directed Canada to impose an additional US$59.4 million in 

export charges on softwood lumber from these provinces destined for the U.S. market.28

Canada began charging additional export duties on March 1, 2011.29

 24 For further background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 5-5 to 5-6. 25 USTR, “United States and Canada Sign a Two-Year Extension,” January 23, 2012. 

26 For further background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 5-5 to 5-6. 27 USTR, “United States and Canada Sign a Two-Year Extension,” January 23, 2012. 

28 LCIA, “United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent: No. 81010; Award,” January 

20, 2011. 29 USTR, “United States and Canada Sign a Two-Year Extension,” January 23, 2012. 
5-7 

The third arbitration case––concerning underpricing of public timber from interior British 

Columbia––was brought by the United States on January 18, 2011. In this case, the 

United States claimed that underpricing of timber harvested from public lands in the 

interior region of British Columbia provided benefits to Canadian softwood lumber 

producers, thereby circumventing the agreement.30 On February 17, 2011, Canada filed 

its first response to the arbitration case with the tribunal.31 On August 16, 2011, the 

United States presented its legal arguments concerning the pricing program in British 

Columbia.32 On November 16, 2011, Canada presented its rebuttal to the U.S. claims, 

arguing that reduced prices between 2007 and 2009 reflected lower-grade timber, the 

result of tree infestation by the mountain pine beetle.33 The dispute was ongoing in 

2012.34

Intellectual Property

The U.S. Trade Representative has listed Canada on the Special 301 Priority Watch List 

since 2009 as a result of concerns over Canada’s failure to implement key copyright 

reforms, in particular the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet 

Treaties, and Canada’s weak border enforcement concerning intellectual property. 35

Canada signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms 

Treaty, commonly called the WIPO Internet Treaties, in 1997.36 Despite several attempts, 

the Canadian government has to date been unsuccessful in passing domestic 

implementing legislation for these treaties. 

Following the March 26, 2011, dissolution of the Canadian parliament and expiration of 

introduced legislation, federal elections were held on May 2, 2011.37 On September 29, 

2011, the government reintroduced the Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-11,38 the 

successor legislation to the bill (C-32) under consideration in the previous parliament and 

Canada’s fourth attempt at copyright reform legislation.39 As cited in its preamble, Bill C-

 30 LCIA, “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; 

Request for Arbitration,” January 18, 2011. 31 LCIA, “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; 

Canada’s Response to Request for Arbitration.” February 18, 2011. 32 LCIA, “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; 

United States Statement of Case, Non-Confidential Version,” August 16, 2011. 33 LCIA, “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; 

Canada’s Statement of Defence, Non-Confidential,” November 16, 2011. 34 At the January 23, 2012, announcement of the two-year extension of the SLA, the Canadian Minister 

of International Trade, Ed Fast, indicated that Canada would be willing to discuss changing several Canadian 

forest sector policies opposed by U.S. lumber producers, in negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership 

(TPP) forum. The minister noted that the TPP was a forum where such issues should be discussed, 

considering the limited authority of Canada’s federal government over forestry policies set by provincial 

governments and the complications that this limitation has posed in the past for negotiations between Canada 

and the United States at the federal level. Inside Washington Publishers, “Canadian Minister Shows 

Willingness to Address Lumber Issues,” January 27, 2012; Government of Canada, Foreign Affairs and 

International Trade Canada, “Ed Fast,” n.d. (accessed April 4, 2012). 35 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 54; USTR, 

2011 Special 301 Report, April 2011. 36 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 54. 

37 USDOS, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Background Note: Canada, December 22, 2011; 

Government of Canada, “Proclamation Dissolving Parliament,” March 28, 2011. 38 C-11: Copyright Modernization Act, Parliament of Canada, House Government Bill, 41st Parliament, 

1st Session (2011). LEGISinfo online database (accessed March 22, 2012). C-11 received its second reading 

February 13, 2012. 39 USDOS, U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, “Canada Introduces Fourth Attempt at Copyright Reform,” October 

19, 2011; C-32: Copyright Modernization Act, Parliament of Canada. House Government Bill, 40th 
5-8 

11 aims to amend the Canadian Copyright Act to better reflect the norms of the WIPO 

Internet Treaties so as to enhance the protection of copyright works and other subject 

matter, as well as to promote innovation, competition, and investment in the Canadian 

economy.40

In October 2011, Canada signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). 

ACTA obligates its signatories to grant border enforcement officials ex officio authority 

to seize counterfeit goods without a court order as a means to stop the transit of 

counterfeit and pirated products. 41 The Canadian government, however, has not yet 

enacted implementing legislation for ACTA (as of early 2012).42

Government Procurement 

On February 16, 2010, the U.S.-Canada Agreement on Government Procurement entered 

into force.43 At talks on February 9, 2011, U.S. and Canadian officials agreed to set up a 

work plan to explore where both governments might find opportunities to improve 

bilateral procurement commitments. 44 Subsequently, in October 2011, the Canadian 

Minister of International Trade held discussions with the U.S. Trade Representative to 

address possible restrictions on government procurement in the “Buy American” 

provisions of the American Jobs Act of 2011, legislation submitted to the U.S. Congress 

on September 12, 2011.45

China

In 2011, China remained the United States’ second-largest single-country trading partner 

based on two-way trade, accounting for 14.2 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. 

two-way merchandise trade with China amounted to $495.4 billion, an increase of 10.1 

percent over 2010. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China, which rose by $23.3 

billion to $301.6 billion in 2011, remained higher than the U.S. deficit with any other 

trading partner. The increase in the trade deficit was mostly attributable to an increase in 

U.S. merchandise imports from China, which more than offset an accompanying increase 

in U.S. exports to China (figure 5.5). However, the U.S. trade surplus in services with 

China increased by 19.8 percent to $13.4 billion in 2011 (figure 5.6). 

 Parliament, 3rd Session (March 3, 2010–March 26, 2011). LEGISinfo online database (accessed March 22, 

2012).40 C-11: Copyright Modernization Act; Preamble, Parliament of Canada, House Government Bill, 41st 

Parliament, 1st Session (2011). LEGISinfo online database (accessed March 22, 2012). 41 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report, April 2011, 27. For more information about ACTA, see chapter 3. 42 US&FCS and USDOS, Doing Business in Canada, 2012. 43 USTR, “U.S.-Canada Agreement on Government Procurement,” n.d. (accessed February 3, 2012). 

44 Inside Washington Publishers, “U.S., Canada Enter Preliminary Stage,” February 18, 2011. 

45 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “American Jobs Act of 2011,” September 12. 2011; 

Trade Reports International Group, “Around the Globe,” Washington Trade Daily, September 15, 2011; 

Trade Reports International Group, “Canada’s Mr. Fast,” Washington Trade Daily, October 18, 2011. The 

February 2010 U.S.-Canada Agreement on Government Procurement included reciprocal, temporary market 

access for a range of construction and public works projects, including certain local public works projects in 

the United States funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. For further 

detail, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 5-6. The U.S.-Canada Agreement on Government 

Procurement “was negotiated in response to the ‘Buy American’ provisions” in the 2009 ARRA, according to 

a report of the Canadian Parliament. Government of Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, “CanadaUnited States Agreement on Government Procurement,” May 2010, 1. However, certain provisions in the 

agreement provided only temporary procurement access through September 30, 2011. Ibid., 14–15; 

Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on 

Government Procurement, February 11–12, 2010. 
5-9 

FIGURE 5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2007–11a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.. 

a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

China overtook Japan to become the third-largest single-country destination for U.S. 

exports in 2007, and remained in that position, behind Canada and Mexico, through 2011. 

U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $96.9 billion in 2011, a 13.0 percent 

increase over 2010. Leading U.S. exports to China included soybeans, metal waste and 

scrap, aircraft, automobiles, cotton, and computer chips. The increase in the value of U.S. 

exports to China in 2011 was led by strong increases in exports of automobiles, metal 

waste and scrap, aircraft, corn, and cotton. 

In 2011, China remained the largest source of U.S. imports. U.S. imports from China 

amounted to $398.5 billion, an increase of 9.5 percent over 2010. Leading U.S. imports 

from China in 2011 were computers and computer parts, wireless telephones, toys, and 

communication equipment. The increase in the value of U.S. imports was led by 

increases in imports of a wide range of electronic devices and machineries, footwear, and 

furniture. U.S.-China merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.31 through 

A.33. 

In 2011, U.S.-China trade relations focused on IPR enforcement in China, China’s 

“indigenous innovation” policies, restrictions on imports of U.S. beef and poultry by 

China, China’s export restraints on raw material inputs (such as rare earths), and the 

promotion of more consumption-led growth in China. These issues were among the 

principal themes of the May 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), 

the November 2011 meeting of the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), 

and other bilateral meetings. 46

There were also developments in a number of WTO dispute settlement cases between the 

United States and China in 2011. The United States requested consultations with China 

regarding measures affecting broiler products (DS427).47 China requested consultations 

with the United States regarding measures affecting shrimp and diamond sawblades 

(DS422).48 WTO Appellate Body reports were adopted in two cases brought by China 

regarding (1) measures affecting U.S. imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires 

 46 U.S. Department of Treasury, “The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” May 10, 

2011; USTR, “22nd U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade,” November 2011; and White 

House, “Press Conference with President Obama and President Hu,” January 19, 2011. 47 WTO, DSB, DS427: China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products 

from the United States, online summary. 48 WTO, DSB, DS422: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades 

from China, online summary. 

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-10 

from China (DS399), and (2) definitive antidumping and countervailing duties on certain 

products from China (DS379).49 A WTO panel report was circulated in the case brought 

by the United States regarding measures related to the exportation of various raw 

materials (DS394).50 WTO panels were composed in two cases brought by the United 

States regarding (1) certain measures affecting electronic payment services (DS413), and 

(2) countervailing and antidumping duties on grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel 

from the United States (DS414).51 Developments in these cases during 2011 are described 

in more detail in chapter 3 and appendix table A.21. 

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement

China’s enforcement of IPR and implementation of its TRIPS Agreement obligations 

remained top priorities for the United States in 2011.52 USTR’s 2011 Special 301 Report

continued to identify China as a country with significant IPR protection and enforcement 

problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation.53 According to USTR, 

China continues to revise its legal regime and update its laws and regulations aimed at 

protecting IPR in China. However, USTR noted that “some key improvements in China’s 

legal framework are still needed, and China has continued to demonstrate little success in 

actually enforcing its laws and regulations in the face of the challenges created by 

widespread counterfeiting, piracy, and other forms of infringement.”54

USTR’s 2011 Special 301 Report noted signs of improvement in China’s IPR system in 

2011. For example, China put in place the “Program for Special Campaign on Combating 

IPR Infringement and Manufacture and Sales of Counterfeiting and Shoddy 

Commodities” from October 2010 to June 2011.55 The campaign targeted key industries, 

such as the press and publication industry, the cultural and recreational industry, the hightech industry, and agriculture, with a focus on key products, such as books, computer 

software, audiovisual products, automobile fittings, mobile telephones, medicines, and 

seeds. 56 According to USTR, the campaign resulted in regulatory and judicial 

improvements as well as strengthened enforcement activities, particularly in the online 

environment. 57 At the November 2011 JCCT meeting, China announced the 

establishment of a State Council-level, vice-premier-led intellectual property enforcement 

structure, which essentially makes permanent China’s 2010–11 Special IPR Enforcement 

Campaign.58 According to USTR, this initiative will allow “much better government 

coordination of intellectual property enforcement efforts and stronger outcomes on the 

ground.”59

 49 WTO, DSB, DS399: United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and 

Light Truck Tyres from China; DS379: United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Products from China, online summary. 50 WTO, DSB, DS394: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, online 

summary. 51 WTO, DSB, DS413: China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services; DS414:

China—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the 

United States, online summary. 52 On April 19, 2010, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance requested that the USITC conduct two 

studies on China’s IPR and indigenous innovation policies. The results were published in USITC, China:

Intellectual Property Infringement, November 2010, and USITC, China: Effects of Intellectual Property 

Infringement, May 2011. 53 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights, May 2, 2011, 19. 

54 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 86. 55 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights, May 2, 2011, 19. 

56 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 89. 57 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights, May 2, 2011, 20. 

58 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 89. 59 Ibid., 3. 
5-11 

Piracy over the Internet in China continued to be a source of U.S. concern, although 

USTR noted that there were signs of progress in this area. As a result of the Special 

Campaign, several Web sites and portals that facilitated piracy, including veryCD.com,

qishi.com, and 5474.com were shut down, and criminal sentences were imposed on the 

operators. Video streaming sites youku.com and toudu.com entered into licensing 

agreements with major U.S. studios to provide legitimately licensed content. Baidu, 

China’s leading search engine, announced its intent to launch a licensed music search 

service and reportedly reached licensing agreements with both Chinese and foreign rights 

holders from the recording industry.60

Although online sales platforms and global express delivery services are increasingly 

used to facilitate the international distribution of Chinese counterfeit goods, USTR noted 

positive developments with respect to Internet distribution in 2011. For example, one of 

the largest online platforms for sales of counterfeit goods, Taobao, launched an online 

anti-piracy campaign to screen its vendors’ advertising and sales activities, and stepped 

up its cooperation with Chinese law enforcement authorities regarding infringing 

activities. However, USTR noted that China also tripled the monetary threshold for 

investigating and prosecuting trade in counterfeit products. USTR further noted that the 

equipment that is used to make counterfeit goods often is not seized and destroyed as a 

part of enforcement actions. Thus, counterfeiters are free to resume operations when the 

authorities leave.61

Industrial Policies 

Another major U.S. concern in 2011 was China’s continuous pursuit of industrial policies 

that sought to limit market access for imported goods, foreign manufacturers, and 

foreign-based service suppliers, while offering substantial government resources to 

support Chinese industries. 62 In 2011, government policies aimed at promoting 

“indigenous innovation”63 continued to represent an important component of China’s 

effort, creating great concern across the globe, according to USTR.64

Nonetheless, some progress was made in the area of indigenous innovation policies in 

2011. At the November 2011 JCCT meeting, China committed to severing the link 

between its innovation policies and government procurement preferences. As part of this 

commitment, China promised to eliminate all indigenous innovation government 

procurement catalogues and issue a State Council measure mandating that by December 

1, 2011, provincial and local governments must eliminate any policies that are 

inconsistent with the de-linking commitment.65 However, USTR noted that this progress 

now needs to be matched by eliminating a range of discriminatory indigenous innovation 

preferences proliferating outside of the government procurement context.66

 60 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights, May 2, 2011, 20–21; USTR, Outof-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, December 20, 2011, 2. 61 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights, May 2, 2011, 21–22. 

62 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 5. 63 China’s indigenous innovation policies promote the development, commercialization, and 

procurement of Chinese products and technologies. For more information, see USITC, China: Intellectual 

Property Infringement, November 2010, chapter 5. 64 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 6. 65 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 3. 66 Ibid., 6. 
5-12 

Export Restraints on Raw Material Inputs 

In 2011, China continued to deploy export quotas, export license restrictions, minimum 

export prices, export duties, and other export restraints on a number of raw material 

inputs where it held the advantage of being among the world’s leading producers.67 For 

example, China maintained export quotas and some export duties on antimony, bauxite, 

coke, fluorspar, indium, magnesium carbonate, molybdenum, rare earths, silicon, talc, tin, 

tungsten, yellow phosphorus, and zinc, all of which are of key interest to U.S. producers 

of downstream products.68 A WTO dispute addressing China’s measures related to the 

exportation of nine raw materials (DS394) is ongoing and described in chapter 3. 

In 2010, China reduced its export quotas and took other actions that created uncertainty 

about the stability of China’s supply of rare earths—an important group of raw material 

inputs used in a wide range of advanced technologies, including numerous green 

technologies. In 2011, the United States pressed China to eliminate its export restraints 

on rare earths, most recently through high-level engagement at the November 2011 JCCT 

meeting.69

Agriculture

In 2011, about 14 percent of U.S. agricultural exports went to China, making it the 

second-largest U.S. agricultural export market behind Canada. 70 Although U.S. 

agricultural exports continued to sell strongly in China, U.S. officials expressed concern 

that China remains among the least transparent and least predictable of the world’s major 

markets for agricultural products, largely because of selective intervention in the market 

by its regulatory authorities. 71 In 2011, China’s regulatory authorities continued to 

impose sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures in a nontransparent way and without 

clear scientific bases. These measures included bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

(BSE)-related bans on U.S. beef and beef products, pathogen standards and residue 

standards for raw meat and poultry products, and avian influenza bans on poultry. 72 The 

United States also requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China regarding 

China’s antidumping duty and countervailing duty measures on U.S. broiler products (see 

chapter 3). 

China imposed a ban on imports of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products in 2003 due 

to a case of BSE discovered in the United States. In 2011, China continued to block the 

importation of U.S. beef and beef products, more than four years after these products had 

been declared safe to trade under international scientific guidelines. 73 U.S. and Chinese 

officials met twice in 2011 in an effort to reach an agreement that would allow trade to 

 67 Ibid. 

68 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March, 2012, 69. 

69 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 6. On March 13, 

2012, the United States requested WTO consultations with China concerning China’s export restraints on rare 

earths, as well as tungsten and molybdenum. USTR, “United States Challenges China’s Export Restraints,” 

March 13, 2012. 70 USDA, “Top 15 U.S. Agricultural Export Destinations,” February 2012. 

71 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 8. For more 

information on the conditions of competition in China’s agricultural market and trade, see USITC, China's

Agricultural Trade: Competitive Conditions and Effects on U.S. Exports, March 2011. 72 USTR, 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 12, 2011, 79. 73 Ibid., 8. 
5-13 

resume based on science, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines,74

and the United States’ controlled-risk status. At the November 2011 JCCT meeting, both 

sides agreed to increase future technical engagement.75

Since 2007, China has placed avian influenza-related import bans on U.S. poultry and 

poultry products from seven U.S. states. In 2010, China announced that it had lifted avian 

influenza-related bans on U.S. poultry products from Idaho and Kentucky. At the 

November 2011 JCCT meeting, China announced that it would lift its avian influenzarelated bans on poultry from Texas and Pennsylvania. However, China continues to ban 

poultry and poultry products from Arkansas, Minnesota, and Virginia. In addition, China 

bans imports of U.S.-origin poultry and poultry products that are transshipped through 

these three states. 76 The United States asked China to take prompt action in accordance 

with science-based international standards on the remaining state-level bans. Both sides 

agreed to hold further technical talks.77

Global Trade Imbalances and China’s Exchange-Rate Regime

In 2011, two important trade features—the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China of 

$301.6 billion, and China’s relatively inflexible exchange rate regime—remained as 

concerns for U.S. policymakers. At the May 2011 U.S.-China S&ED, the U.S. Secretary 

of the Treasury encouraged China to allow more rapid exchange rate adjustment.78 The 

Secretary noted that exchange rate adjustment is an inherent part of the rebalancing 

toward domestic demand growth that China hopes to achieve.79

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, from June 2010, when China moved off its 

peg against the U.S. dollar, through December 16, 2011, China’s renminbi (RMB) 

appreciated by a total of 7.5 percent against the dollar. Because inflation in China has 

been higher than in the United States, the RMB has appreciated more rapidly against the 

dollar on a real inflation-adjusted basis, reaching nearly 12 percent since June 2010 and 

nearly 40 percent (also in real terms) since China first initiated currency reforms in 

2005.80

Mexico

In 2011, Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country trading partner, 

following Canada and China. Merchandise trade between the two countries increased 

17.2 percent to $422.6 billion in 2011, accounting for 12.1 percent of U.S. trade with the 

world. The United States registered its second-largest single-country merchandise trade 

deficit with Mexico at $102.8 billion, representing an increase of $5.5 billion: this deficit 

was outweighed only by that with China. While the value of U.S. merchandise exports to 

Mexico rose strongly in 2011, the value of the corresponding U.S. imports from Mexico 

 74 The Office International des Epizooties was established in 1924. In May 2003, the Office became the 

World Organization for Animal Health, but kept its historical acronym OIE. See http://www.oie.int/about-us/

(accessed April 16, 2012). 75 USTR, 2012 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Report, April 2, 2012, 33. 

76 USTR, 2012 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, April 2, 2012, 34. 

77 USTR, “21st U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade,” December 2010. 

78 The U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Remarks by Secretary Tim Geithner,” May 3, 2011. 

79 U.S. Department of Treasury, Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate 

Policies, December 27, 2011, 16. 80 U.S. Department of Treasury, Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate 

Policies, December 27, 2011, 19. 
5-14 

rose slightly more (figure 5.7). On the other hand, the U.S. trade surplus in services with 

Mexico increased by 11.8 percent to $11.6 billion in 2011 (figure 5.8). U.S. services 

exports to Mexico were $25.6 billion, and U.S. services imports from Mexico were $14.0 

billion.

U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled $159.9 billion in 2011, an increase of 21.5 

percent from 2010. In 2011, as in the previous year, machinery and transportation 

equipment continued to be the largest product group in bilateral trade, with automotive 

exports to Mexico included petroleum products, corn, natural gas, soybeans, para-xylene, 

plastic articles, parts for electrical apparatus, and aircraft and aircraft parts. 

In 2011, U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico increased by 14.8 percent to $262.7 

billion. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included crude petroleum and petroleum 

products, televisions, motor vehicles and parts thereof, computers, nonmonetary gold, 

cell phones, road tractors, and medical instruments. Particularly important in the increase 

of U.S. imports from Mexico was the rise in the value of imports of crude petroleum. 

U.S.-Mexico merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.34 through A.36. 

U.S.-Mexican trade relations are governed in large part by NAFTA, which provides dutyfree treatment to a sizable portion of goods traded between the two parties that originate 

in the United States and Mexico.81 A number of trade disputes between the United States 

and Mexico were the subject of WTO and NAFTA dispute settlement proceedings in 

2011. The procedural developments in each of these cases are listed in appendix tables 

A.21 and A.22, respectively. Developments of an agreement related to NAFTA’s crossborder trucking provisions between Mexico and the United States are summarized below. 

Cross-Border Trucking between the United States and Mexico

NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions permitted Mexican trucks to provide crossborder truck services throughout the United States beginning in 2000. The 

implementation of these provisions was delayed because of safety concerns.82 However, 

FIGURE 5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2007–11a

 

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

 81 For more information on NAFTA, see chapter 4. 

82 Developments in cross-border truck services between the United States and Mexico from 1981 to 

2008 are reported in USITC, Year in Trade 2008, 2009, 5-16; in 2009 in USITC, Year in Trade 2009, 2010, 

5-16; and in 2010 in USITC, Year in Trade 2010, 2011, 5-12. 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-15 

in 2007 the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) initiated the Cross-Border 

Trucking Demonstration Project aimed at demonstrating the ability of Mexico-based 

motor carriers to operate safely in the United States.83 The program was suspended in 

2009 when Congress banned the use of USDOT funds for its operation.84 In retaliation, 

the Mexican government suspended preferential tariffs that NAFTA affords certain U.S. 

goods.85 The retaliatory tariffs were modified in 2010 to include a total of 99 tariff lines, 

ranging from rates of 5 percent to 25 percent ad valorem, applied to approximately $2.5 

billion in U.S. exports to Mexico. The affected goods included 45 finished products and 

54 agricultural products. 86

On January 6, 2011, the USDOT presented to Congress and the Mexican government an 

“initial concept document for a long haul cross-border Mexican trucking program that 

prioritizes safety, while satisfying U.S. international obligations.”87 The initial concept 

document sought to address concerns raised during the process by affiliated parties and 

serve as the “starting point in renewed negotiations with Mexico.” 88 Following 

negotiations, on April 13, 2011, the USDOT announced a proposal for a Pilot Program on 

the NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions to reopen cross-border trucking with 

Mexico.89 The pilot program will not exceed three years. 

On July 6, 2011, U.S. and Mexican government officials signed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) on cross-border trucking to set up criteria that must be met for 

Mexican trucks to enter the pilot program.90 The agreement requires that Mexican trucks 

operating in the United States carry electronic monitoring systems to track their 

compliance with U.S. hours-of-service regulations. In addition, the USDOT will review 

the complete driving record of each driver and require that they undergo a drug test 

analyzed in a U.S. laboratory. Finally, each driver must pass an English proficiency exam 

conducted by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration personnel to ensure an 

understanding of U.S. laws and traffic signs. The agreement also stipulates that Mexico 

will provide reciprocal access to U.S. carriers. Before 18 months of operation are 

completed, a final compliance review will be conducted. Carriers that pass the review 

will be granted a permanent operating authority to operate throughout both countries.91

As a result of signing the MOU, which allows Mexico-based motor carriers to operate 

beyond the limited commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border, Mexico reduced the 

retaliatory duties by 50 percent effective on July 8, 2011.92 The Mexican government 

suspended the remaining tariffs on October 21, 2011, after the first Mexican carrier was 

granted operating authority to enter the pilot program on October 14, 2011.93

 83 Details of the program are reported in USITC, Year in Trade 2007, 2008, 5-11; USITC, The Year in 

Trade 2009, 2010, 5-16; The Year in Trade 2010, 2011, 5-12. 84 74 Fed. Reg. 11628 (March 18, 2009); Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8. 

85 Secretaría de Gobernación, Diario Oficial de la Federación (Mexico’s Federal Register), March 18, 

2009. 86 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 247. 

87 USDOT, “U.S. Cross-Border Trucking Effort Emphasizes Safety and Efficiency,” January 6, 2011. 

See also USDOT, “Concept Document: Phased U.S.-Mexico,” January 6, 2011; and 76 Fed. Reg. 20807 

(April 13, 2011). 88 USDOT, “U.S. Cross-Border Trucking Effort Emphasizes Safety and Efficiency,” January 6, 2011. 

89 76 Fed. Reg. 20807 (April 13, 2011). 

90 USDOT, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, “Memorandum of Understanding on 

International Freight Cross-Border Trucking Services,” July 6, 2011. 91 Ibid. 

92 USDOT, “United States and Mexico Announce,” July 6, 2011; USTR, “USTR Kirk on Reduction of 

Tariffs on U.S. Exports,” July 8, 2011. 93 USTR, “Ambassador Kirk Comments on Mexico’s Elimination of Retaliatory Tariffs,” October 21, 

2011.
5-16 

Japan

In 2011, Japan was the fourth-largest single-country U.S. trading partner, accounting for 

5.4 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade, down from 5.8 percent in 2010. U.S. trade 

with Japan was $189.3 billion in 2011, an increase of 7.8 percent over 2010. The United 

States recorded a merchandise trade deficit with Japan of $66.5 billion in 2011, up $2.3 

billion from 2010 (figure 5.9). The increase in the bilateral trade deficit was primarily 

attributable to a $5.9 billion increase in U.S. imports of machinery (primarily capital 

goods) and overall growth in most major import sectors except motor vehicles and parts 

thereof, offsetting broad-based U.S. export growth. Japan was both the third-largest 

market for U.S. exports of services and the third-largest source of U.S. services imports 

in 2011, behind Canada (the largest destination for U.S. exports) and the United Kingdom 

(the largest source for imports). U.S. services exports to Japan rose 5.1 percent to $47.0 

billion, while imports of services from Japan rose 5.4 percent to $24.8 billion, resulting in 

a $1.0 billion increase in the U.S. services surplus to $22.2 billion in 2011 (figure 5.10). 

Between 2010 and 2011, U.S. merchandise exports to Japan grew 10.2 percent, from 

$55.7 billion in 2010 to $61.4 billion in 2011. Japan remained the fourth-largest 

destination for U.S. exports, accounting for 4.7 percent of global U.S. exports. Leading 

U.S. exports to Japan were aircraft and parts thereof, corn, certain medicaments, wheat, 

and coal. Many of the top U.S. exports to Japan were also the products that contributed 

the most to export growth, especially corn, coal, wheat, and certain medicaments. 

U.S. merchandise imports from Japan grew 6.6 percent to $127.9 billion in 2011, up from 

$119.9 billion in 2010. Japan remained the fourth-largest source of U.S. imports, 

accounting for 5.8 percent of global U.S. imports. Leading U.S. imports from Japan were 

passenger vehicles and parts, parts for printers and copying machines, machines for 

manufacturing computer chips, and parts of airplanes or helicopters. A decrease in U.S. 

imports of certain passenger vehicles and parts was offset by growth in other sectors, 

such as heavy construction equipment and machines for manufacturing computer chips. 

U.S.-Japan merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.37 through A.39. 

The U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative (EHI), instituted in November 2010, 

was the primary forum for trade and economic dialogue between the two countries 

FIGURE 5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2007–11a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2011 are preliminary.

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-17 

throughout 2011. APEC also served as a forum for high-level bilateral engagement, as 

the United States hosted the forum in 2011 following Japan’s chairmanship in 2010. Just 

before the APEC Leaders’ Meeting, the Japanese Prime Minister announced that Japan 

would engage in consultations with the United States and other APEC members toward 

joining Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. The United States continued to 

press Japan to address key trade irritants, including policies related to beef, automobiles, 

and regulatory issues related to Japan Post (discussed below). Finally, Japan experienced 

a major earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster which, in addition to the human toll, 

disrupted its supply chain and required additional assurances about the safety of its 

agricultural exports. 

Economic Harmonization Initiative

The EHI served as the key venue for the U.S. and Japanese governments to expand 

economic cooperation and address issues of importance to the bilateral trade relationship 

in 2011. The governments held working-level meetings throughout 2011, as well as a 

high-level officials meeting in October 2011. Discussions took place based on the four 

following themes: exchanging policy information, promoting economic cooperation, 

collaborating on common external challenges, and facilitating trade.94

The U.S. and Japanese governments exchanged information related to their trade-related 

growth strategies, including the United States’ National Export Initiative and Japan’s 

New Growth Strategy. 95 As a result of exchanges related to the information and 

communications technology (ICT) sector, both governments jointly developed a set of 

non-binding trade principles for the sector that the United States hopes will be broadly 

adopted among other countries. The ICT dialogue coincided with regulatory changes 

implemented in Japan that involved spectrum assignment, mobile interconnection rates, 

dominant carrier issues, and government ICT procurement.96

The United States continued to press Japan on the competitive position held by Japan 

Post Holdings Co. (Japan Post) in the banking, insurance, and express delivery sectors of 

the Japanese economy.97 As part of the EHI, Japan shared information on progress made 

toward privatization as prescribed in the Postal Privatization Law, passed by the Japanese 

Diet in 2005.98 Since 2009, however, this process has been stalled, as the privatization 

process has been halted by a series of amendments that may result in a larger company 

with greater government ownership than envisioned in the 2005 legislation.99 A major 

concern for U.S. policymakers and business leaders has been that the amendment process 

will allow the domestic postal entity within Japan Post to subsidize other entities, such as 

its express delivery service business. In addition, Japan Post could be subject to fewer 

reporting and customs clearance requirements than private companies, which may give 

the company an anticompetitive advantage over smaller domestic firms and foreign 

competitors.100

The EHI also resulted in regulatory changes and information sharing that facilitated trade 

in several non-service-related sectors. For example, in June 2011, the Ministry of Land, 

 94 USTR, Record of Discussion: U.S.-Japan EHI, January 27, 2012, 1. 

95 Ibid., 2. 

96 Ibid., 5–6; USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 141. 

97 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 141. 

98 USTR, Record of Discussion: U.S.-Japan EHI, January 27, 2012, 8–9. 

99 Sekiguchi, “Japan Nears Deal on Postal Privatization,” March 25, 2012. 

100 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012, 211; ACCJ 

Insurance Committee, “Ensure That the Ongoing Postal Reform Debate,” March 2012. 
5-18 

Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) clarified that technical guidelines issued 

by MLIT cannot be grounds for preventing a motor vehicle from being placed on the 

market, and that new technology or a new feature in an automobile cannot be a grounds 

for restriction if it has not been previously regulated.101 MLIT’s clarification removes a 

potential obstacle to U.S. exports of vehicles to Japan, a market that U.S. vehicle 

manufacturers have had a difficult time accessing due to regulatory barriers. Specific 

regulatory changes were also designed to facilitate U.S. exports of pharmaceuticals, 

medical devices, and agricultural products that face SPS restrictions.102

Multilateral Negotiations and Cooperation

On the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Yokohama, Japan, in November 2010, the 

United States welcomed Japan’s interest in gathering further information on joining TPP 

negotiations as part of a series of bilateral consultations with all members.103 Since that 

time, Japan has continued to pursue this interest. At the bilateral U.S.-Japan Trade Forum 

in January 2011, representatives of the United States and Japan shared information 

regarding Japan’s “Basic Policy on Comprehensive Economic Partnerships” as well as 

U.S. ambitions in FTA negotiations.104 Before joining the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in 

Honolulu in November 2011, the Japanese Prime Minister announced that Japan would 

begin consultations with TPP countries toward joining TPP negotiations.105 Consultations 

continued between officials from the United States, Japan, and other TPP governments in 

early 2012 as governments gauged domestic support for Japan’s entry into the 

negotiations.106

Also in 2011, the United States and Japan cooperated to push forward several major 

multilateral initiatives related to IPR protection. At the APEC forum, the United States 

and Japan promoted the Patent Prosecution Highway, an initiative designed to share work 

among patent offices to reduce duplication of patent examination. In October 2011, the 

United States, Japan, and six other countries signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 

Agreement, which strengthens enforcement practices and legal frameworks for 

combating commercial-scale counterfeiting and piracy.107

Beef

As part of a bilateral meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Noda on the 

sidelines of the 2011 APEC Summit, the Prime Minister indicated that Japan would begin 

a review process on current restrictions on U.S. beef imports.108 Japan banned imports of 

U.S. beef in December 2003, following years in which Japan was the largest export 

market for U.S. beef.109 The beef import ban, which is designed to protect consumers 

from beef that may have been exposed to BSE, currently restricts cuts from cattle older 

 101 USTR, Record of Discussion: U.S.-Japan EHI, January 27, 2012, 11. 102 Ibid., 11–12, 14–16. 103 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara Meet,” 

November 2010. 104 USTR, “United States, Japan Conclude Two-Day U.S.-Japan Trade Forum,” January 14, 2011. 105 Prime Minister of Japan, “Press Conference on the Occasion,” November 2011. 106 For more on initial U.S. statements regarding the consultation process, see Assistant USTR Wendy 

Cutler’s remarks in Brookings, “Japan and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” December 2, 2011. 107 USTR, Record of Discussion: U.S.-Japan EHI, January 27, 2012, 8. For more information related to 

ACTA, see the subsection on the agreement in chapter 3. 108 White House, “Readout by the Press Secretary,” November 12, 2011. 109 USITC, Year in Trade 2010, 2011, 5-16. 
5-19 

than 20 months of age.110 As of yearend 2011, a panel on BSE at Japan’s Food Safety 

Commission was determining whether beef from cattle up to 30 months of age is safe.111

Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster 

On March 11, 2011, much of northeastern Japan experienced a major human and 

commercial disaster caused by an earthquake off the Pacific coast. The earthquake and 

resulting tsunami and nuclear disaster cost over 15,000 people their lives and resulted in 

destroyed and damaged industrial property, nuclear contamination, and infrastructure 

damage.112 The resulting damage to the supply chain had a direct impact on U.S.-Japan 

trade. For example, U.S. imports of motor vehicles and parts thereof, the leading bilateral 

U.S. import sector, fell from a record high of $4.4 billion in March 2011 to $1.8 billion in 

April and $1.7 billion in May. As part of the EHI’s information exchange, the Japanese 

government briefed the U.S. government on supply chain recovery and post-disaster 

rehabilitation, and expressed appreciation for the continuous support extended by the 

United States to Japan.113 In view of the nuclear contamination issue, officials from 

USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) took steps to reassure 

domestic U.S markets that food imports from Japan, which are relatively low, were 

sufficiently monitored under existing procedures for inspecting food imports.114

Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea (Korea) was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country 

two-way trading partner in 2011. Two-way merchandise trade was valued at $97.3 billion 

in 2011, accounting for 2.8 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The United States 

recorded a $14.7 billion trade deficit with Korea in 2011—32.7 percent higher than in 

2010, when the deficit with Korea was the lowest in the last decade (figure 5.11). At the 

same time, the U.S. trade surplus in services with Korea increased $1.1 billion to $8.4 

billion in 2011 (figure 5.12). 

FIGURE 5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2007–11a

 

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

 110 The dairy cow in California that was discovered on April 24, 2012, to have BSE was aged 

approximately 10 years and 7 months. USDA, “Update from USDA Regarding a Detection,” April 26, 2012. 111 Takada, “Record U.S. Beef Sales Seen,” January 24, 2012. 112 National Police Agency of Japan, “Damage Situation and Police Countermeasures,” April 1, 2012; 

Clyde&Co, The Tohuku Earthquake and Tsunami: Second Report, August 2011. 113 USTR, Record of Discussion: U.S.-Japan EHI, January 27, 2012, 2. 114 USDA, “Statement from Agriculture Secretary Vilsack,” March 18, 2011. 

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-20 

U.S. exports to Korea were valued at $41.3 billion in 2011, an increase of 12.1 percent 

over 2010. Leading U.S. exports to Korea during the year included computer chips, 

machinery for producing semiconductors and computer chips, aircraft, and corn. Most of 

the 2011 leading exports showed strong increases in value, although the value of a 

number of leading exports, such as transistors, parts for boring or sinking machinery, and 

machinery for producing semiconductors and computer chips, fell substantially. 

U.S. imports from Korea totaled $56.0 billion in 2011, an increase of 16.9 percent from 

2010. Leading U.S. imports from Korea included automobiles, cellular telephones, and 

computer chips. There were increases in the value of most of the major leading imports. 

U.S.-Korea merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.40 through A.42. 

U.S.-Korean trade relations in 2011 were dominated by the status of the United StatesKorea FTA (KORUS FTA). The KORUS FTA was signed in June 2007, modifications 

were made in 2010, and it was approved by legislatures in both countries in 2011. In 

addition, the United States attempted to include a deal to allow exports of U.S. beef to 

Korea to include beef from cattle of all ages as part of the negotiations related to the 

KORUS FTA, but there were no provisions dealing with beef in the final agreement, as 

discussed in the next two sections. 

U.S.-Korea FTA

The President sent legislation implementing the Korus FTA to Congress on October 3, 

2011, and Congress approved it on October 12, 2011. On October 21, 2011, the President 

signed the legislation.115 The Korean National Assembly approved the agreement on 

November 22, 2011.116 The KORUS FTA is the second-largest FTA in terms of the value 

of trade affected for the United States after NAFTA.117

Background

On December 3, 2010, the United States and Korea reached an understanding on several 

unresolved issues related to the KORUS FTA, which was signed on June 30, 2007. The 

modifications included the following:118 (1) a slower phaseout of tariffs on U.S. and 

Korean passenger motor vehicles, U.S. trucks, and Korean frozen pork; (2) a nearquadrupling of the number of passenger motor vehicles per U.S. automaker that will be 

considered safety-compliant when imported into Korea, provided they meet U.S. safety 

standards; (3) greater transparency in new U.S. or Korean regulations affecting motor 

vehicle design or technology, and in Korean motor vehicle taxation based on fuel 

economy or greenhouse gas emissions; and (4) a special safeguard against surges in 

imports of motor vehicles that lasts longer than the general safeguard provision in the 

2007 agreement.119

 115 United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. 112-41. 116 USTR, “Update on Implementation of Free Trade Agreements,” December 5, 2011. 117 CRS, “KORUS FTA,” November 30, 2011, Executive Summary. The KORUS FTA entered into 

force on March 15, 2012. “Proclamation 8783 of March 6, 2012, To Implement the United States-Korea Free 

Trade Agreement,” 77 Fed. Reg. 14265–14267 (March 9, 2012). For more information about the KORUS 

FTA, see chapter 4. 118 For an overview of the KORUS FTA, see chapter 4. 119 White House, “Statement of the President,” December 3, 2010; White House, “Fact Sheet,” 

December 3, 2010; USTR, “Letter to Minister for Trade Jong-Hoon Kim,” February 10, 2011; USTR, 2011 

National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 225; CRS, “KORUS FTA,” March 

1, 2011. The general safeguard can be invoked during the 10-year period after the FTA enters into force. The 

special safeguard for motor vehicles can be invoked for passenger automobiles during the 15-year period 
5-21 

Beef

Two events related to the U.S. exports of beef to Korea occurred on May 4, 2011. First, 

USDA announced that it had awarded an additional $1 million of Market Access 

Program funds in 2011 to the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) to promote U.S. 

beef sales in Korea.120 In the same announcement, USDA welcomed a new initiative from 

USMEF to implement a five-year market promotion strategy for U.S. beef in Korea.121

USMEF announced that it would seek $10 million from USDA to fund that strategy.122

Second, USTR Kirk informed Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance 

Committee, that shortly after the KORUS FTA enters into force, the United States will 

request consultations with Korea under Article 25 of the April 2008 U.S.-Korea beef 

import protocol (see below).123 As a result of these two announcements, Senator Baucus, 

who had withheld support for the KORUS FTA because of his concerns about barriers to 

U.S. beef in the Korean market, announced that he would henceforth support KORUS 

FTA implementing legislation as it moved through the Senate.124

Background

Before 2008, Korea intermittently suspended imports of beef from the United States 

because of concerns about BSE.125 On April 18, 2008, the United States and Korea 

agreed to a protocol that provides for a full reopening of the Korean beef market to 

exports from the United States. The protocol defines conditions for the importation of 

U.S. beef into Korea and requires that the United States meet or exceed guidelines set by 

the OIE.126 It permits all U.S. beef (bone-in and boneless) and beef products from cattle 

of all ages to be imported into Korea, as long as appropriate specified-risk materials, as 

defined by the OIE, are removed.127

In response to significant public opposition to resuming imports of U.S. beef in Korea,128

Korean beef importers and U.S. exporters reached a commercial understanding—separate 

from the April 18, 2008, agreement—that only U.S. beef and beef products from cattle 

less than 30 months of age would be shipped to Korea, as a transitional measure, to 

improve Korean consumer confidence in U.S. beef.129 U.S. beef exports resumed as of 

June 26, 2008, and Korea quickly returned to being one of the leading destinations for 

U.S. beef exports. Korea was the fourth leading destination by value for U.S. beef exports 

 following entry into force and for trucks during the 20-year period following entry into force. See also 

USITC, U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Passenger Vehicle Sector Update, 2011, for more detail and 

analysis. 120 USDA, “USDA Awards Additional MAP Funds to USMEF,” May 4, 2011. 121 Ibid. 122 U.S. Meat Export Federation, “USMEF Announces Expanded South Korea Initiative,” May 4, 2011. 123 USTR, “Letter to Senator Max Baucus,” May 4, 2011. 124 Baucus, “Baucus Secures Administration’s Commitment,” May 4, 2011. 125 For details, see USITC, Year in Trade 2008, 2009, 5-21 to 5-22. 126 OIE, Resolution no. XXIV. Under Paragraph 5 of the 2008 agreement, if an additional case of BSE 

is discovered in the United States, imports will be suspended if the OIE downgrades the BSE classification of 

the United States. That has not happened following the April 24, 2012, discovery of BSE. The Korean 

government has announced that it will increase inspections of U.S. beef imports, and some stores in Korea 

have announced that they will suspend sales of U.S. beef. The Dong-A Ilbo, “Gov’t Moves to Ease Consumer 

Fears,” April 25, 2012. 127 USTR, 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report, March 2009, 151. 128 USITC, Global Beef Trade, 2008, 6-2. 129 USTR, 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report, March 2009, 151; USTR, “USTR 

Confirms Korea’s Announcement,” June 21, 2008. Key elements and procedures of the protocol are 

summarized in USITC, Global Beef Trade, 2008, 6-13 to 6-14. 
5-22 

in 2008–11, with substantial increases in exports in 2010 and 2011. Still, in 2011, U.S. 

beef exports to Korea remained less than before the 2003 ban, especially when 

considered on a volume basis. Because the Korean position was that beef “is unrelated 

to” the FTA that was concluded in 2007,130 the December 2010 agreement did not include 

any provisions related to Korean imports of U.S. beef, and the commercial understanding 

remains in effect. 

Brazil

Brazil shifted from being the United States’ 10th-largest single-country trading partner in 

2010 to being its 8th-largest trading partner in 2011, moving ahead of both France and 

Taiwan. Brazil remained the United States’ 2nd-largest Latin American partner (and the 

largest South American partner) behind Mexico. Two-way merchandise trade increased 

26.3 percent to $67.6 billion in 2011, accounting for 1.9 percent of U.S. trade with the 

world. The United States recorded a $6.9 billion merchandise trade surplus with Brazil in 

2011, slightly higher than its $6.8 billion surplus in 2010 and more than double its $2.5 

billion trade surplus in 2009. Recent years mark a striking change from the deficits 

recorded in the past (figure 5.13). The U.S. services trade surplus with Brazil increased 

by $1.7 billion to $13.0 billion in 2011 (figure 5.14). 

U.S. merchandise exports to Brazil amounted to $37.3 billion in 2011, an increase of 23.6 

percent from 2010. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil included aircraft and aircraft parts, 

petroleum-related oils and refined petroleum products, coal, ethyl alcohol, and parts for 

boring or sinking machinery. Among the leading U.S. exports, there were especially large 

increases in the value of exports of petroleum-related products and ethyl alcohol, as well 

as substantial increases in coal and cotton compared with 2010. The substantial increase 

in U.S. exports to Brazil allowed Brazil to remain the ninth-largest single-country 

destination for U.S. exports in 2011. 

U.S. imports from Brazil totaled $30.4 billion in 2011, up 29.8 percent from 2010. This 

increase was led by U.S. imports of petroleum-related products, unroasted coffee, pig 

iron and semi-finished iron, chemical wood pulp, ethyl alcohol, and parts for piston 

engines. The surge in U.S. imports from Brazil allowed Brazil to rise from the 18th- to 

FIGURE 5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.14 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2007–11a

 

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

 130 Trade Reports International Group, Washington Trade Daily, November 9, 2010, 3. 

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-23 

the 17th-largest single-country source for U.S. imports in 2011. U.S.-Brazil merchandise 

trade data are shown in appendix tables A.43 through A.45. 

There were developments related to two WTO dispute settlement cases between the 

United States and Brazil in 2011. First, U.S. and Brazilian officials met quarterly under 

the Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution to the Cotton Dispute, the interim 

solution reached in 2010 to the WTO dispute settlement case concerning U.S. subsidies 

on upland cotton (DS267). 131 This agreement will remain in effect until the U.S. 

Congress enacts a successor law to the U.S. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(“2008 U.S. Farm Bill”) in 2012 or a mutually agreed solution is reached.132 Second, a 

WTO panel report was adopted in 2011 in a case brought by Brazil regarding U.S. 

antidumping administrative reviews and other measures related to U.S. imports of orange 

juice from Brazil. Developments in this case are described in chapter 3. The following 

section describes the new Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation signed during 

the President’s visit to Brazil in 2011. 

Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation 

On March 19, 2011, the United States and Brazil signed the U.S.-Brazil Agreement on 

Trade and Economic Cooperation (ATEC). 133 The ATEC created a mechanism for 

managing the U.S.-Brazil trade relationship, and is intended to expand trade and 

investment by increasing cooperation on issues including innovation, trade facilitation, 

agriculture, and technical barriers to trade.134 The agreement established the U.S.-Brazil 

Commission on Economic and Trade Relations (CETR) with the objective of “promoting 

bilateral economic and trade cooperation.”135 The CETR will be chaired by officials of 

the USTR and officials of the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations and the Brazilian 

Ministry of Development, Industry and External Trade.136 The CETR’s work program 

covers the following: facilitation and liberalization of bilateral trade and investment; 

cooperation on shared objectives in the WTO; cooperation in the United States-Brazil 

Consultative Committee on Agriculture; SPS measures; technical barriers to trade; IPR; 

regulatory issues affecting trade and investment; information and communication 

technology and e-commerce; trade and technical capacity building; trade in services; and 

any such matters as the CETR may decide.137 The CETR will meet annually and had its 

first meeting in March 2012.138

 131 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012, 83, 137. For 

more information on this dispute, see USITC, Year in Trade 2010, 5-23. 132 USTR, “U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute,” June 17, 2010; USTR, 

“Kirk Comments of Signing of Framework,” June 25, 2010; USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 

Annual Report, March 2012, 82. 133 USTR, “United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk Signs Agreement,” March 19, 2011; USTR, 

2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 137. 134 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 18. 135 White House, “Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation,” March 19, 2011, 2; White House, 

“Strengthening the U.S.-Brazil Economic Relationship,” March 19, 2011. 136 White House, “Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation,” March 19, 2011. 137 Ibid. 138 USTR hosted the first meeting of the U.S.-Brazil CETR on March 13, 2012. During the meeting, 

delegations from the United States and Brazil agreed to explore greater cooperation on a variety of issues, 

including investment, IPR, cross-border trade in services, and technical barriers to trade, among others. The 

parties highlighted agricultural biotechnology as an area of current progress with great potential for more 

collaboration. The two governments agreed to hold the next annual meeting of the CETR in Brazil. USTR, 

“USTR Hosts First Meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Commission,” March 14, 2012; USTR, “Ambassador Sapiro 

Co-chairs the First Meeting,” March 14, 2012. 
5-24 

Taiwan

In 2011, the United States reported $65.0 billion in two-way merchandise trade with 

Taiwan, an increase of 9.3 percent over recorded 2010 trade of $59.5 billion. Taiwan 

remained the ninth-largest single-economy trading partner with the United States for the 

second year in a row, accounting for 1.9 percent of U.S. trade with the world. While U.S. 

exports to Taiwan changed very little, U.S. imports from Taiwan increased in 2011, 

causing the United States’ bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan to rise by 49.5 percent from 

$11.7 billion in 2010 to $17.4 billion in 2011 (figure 5.15). On the other hand, the U.S. 

services trade surplus with Taiwan increased 31.3 percent from $3.0 billion in 2010 to 

$3.9 billion in 2011 (figure 5.16). 

U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan remained nearly unchanged from 2010 to 2011, 

decreasing only 0.5 percent to $23.8 billion in 2011. As a result, Taiwan became the 

15th-largest destination for U.S. exports in 2011, a fall from 12th in 2010. Semiconductor 

manufacturing and assembly equipment remained the leading U.S. export to Taiwan, 

accounting for 5.8 percent of 2011 merchandise exports. Other leading U.S. exports were 

computer chips and ferrous waste and scrap, each accounting for approximately 5.6 

percent of 2011 U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan, followed by corn, soybeans, and 

aircraft. 

U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan were $41.2 billion in 2011, a 15.9 percent 

increase from 2010. As in 2010, imports of electronic components contributed to the 

overall increase in U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan. Cellular telephones were the 

leading U.S. merchandise import from Taiwan in 2011, accounting for 16.0 percent of 

total imports. Other leading imports were computer chips, computer parts, radio 

navigational aid systems (GPS devices), and computer processors. U.S.-Taiwan 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.46 through A.48. 

The United States and Taiwan entered into the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment 

Framework Agreement (TIFA) in 1994 in order to promote economic cooperation and 

discuss bilateral trade issues.139 High-level meetings under the TIFA were to take place 

on an annual basis; however, they have not been held since 2007 due to a dispute over 

FIGURE 5.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.16 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2007–11a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

 139 Campbell, testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, October 4, 2011. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-25 

Taiwan’s restrictions on imports of U.S. beef. Since 2003, Taiwan has restricted imports 

of U.S. beef and beef products due to BSE. Following a 2009 agreement which opened 

Taiwan’s markets to full access for U.S. beef and beef products, Taiwan amended the 

agreement in 2010 to ban imports of U.S. ground beef and certain offal products. New 

concerns in 2011 over the feed additive ractopamine further affected discussions under 

the TIFA. More information about the dispute over ractopamine use in U.S. beef is 

provided below.140

IPR protection and the WTO Country Specific Quota (CSQ) on U.S. rice imports also 

continued to be on the U.S.-Taiwan trade agenda in 2011. Due to a mutually agreed upon 

IPR action plan, Taiwan has remained off of the Special 301 watch list since 2009. 

However, the United States continues to engage Taiwan on various IPR issues, including 

those involving healthcare goods and services, such as innovation in the pharmaceuticals 

sector.141 Regarding the CSQ, the United States continued to work with Taiwan in 2011 

on fulfilling Taiwan’s CSQ on imports of U.S. rice. The CSQ was implemented in 2002 

and Taiwan began using a ceiling price mechanism in applying the CSQ in 2003. U.S. 

exporters have raised concerns that the ceiling price mechanism may disrupt Taiwan’s 

tendering process for procuring U.S. rice. Although the ceiling price is not public, it was 

reportedly set below the price levels bid by U.S. exporters, which caused tenders to 

fail.142 Nonetheless, for the third year in a row, Taiwan successfully filled the 2011 CSQ 

by completing the final tender of U.S. rice in December 2011.143

Beef

In 2011, new U.S. concerns emerged regarding Taiwan’s restriction on imports of U.S. 

beef due to concerns about ractopamine. Ractopamine is a veterinary drug used as an 

animal feed additive to promote leanness in pigs and cattle, which was approved for use 

in cattle by the USFDA in 2003.144 Although Taiwan has long banned ractopamine, it 

was not until early 2011 that Taiwan began testing U.S. beef for the drug.145 In January 

2011, Taiwan announced that two U.S. beef shipments had tested positive for 

ractopamine. At that time, Taiwan began extensive testing of U.S. beef shipments. 

However, there is uncertainty as to the exact specifications against which U.S beef is 

being tested. This uncertainty has arisen as a result of Taiwan’s failure to implement 

maximum residue limits (MRLs) for ractopamine use, although Taiwan conducted a risk 

assessment of ractopamine and notified the WTO of its intention to establish MRLs for 

ractopamine in beef and pork in 2007.146 According to a statement from the American 

Institute in Taiwan, Taiwan’s testing of imported beef confirmed that all U.S. beef 

 140 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 145; USTR, 2011 Report 

on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 79; American Chamber of Commerce, Taipei, 

“AmCham Urges Early Scheduling of TIFA Talks,” February 9, 2010. 141 USTR, 2009 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2009, 1; USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 

2010; USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report, April 2011, 14. 142 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 338. 143 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 146; USDA, FAS, 

“Conclusion of the 2011 Rice CSQ Tenders,” December 30, 2011. 144 WTO, “Committee Debates Pros and Cons of Standard,” June 30–July 1, 2011; USTR, 2011 Report 

on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 24. 145 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 146; USTR, 2011 Report 

on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 79–80; U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, “Why Taiwan 

Matters,” Hammond-Chambers testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, June 16, 2011. 146 In addition, 27 countries have tested and confirmed that meat from animals that were fed 

ractopamine is safe for human consumption. American Institute in Taiwan, “The Facts about U.S. Beef and 

Ractopamine,” February 21, 2012; USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 

2011, 80. 
5-26 

imported into Taiwan fell within the MRLs established by the Joint Expert Committee on 

Food Additives (JECFA) of two UN bodies, the Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).147

With the continuation of BSE restrictions and new restrictions on importation of U.S. 

beef due to concerns over ractopamine, the value of U.S. exports of beef to Taiwan 

declined by almost 8.0 percent, from $216.2 million in 2010 to $199.5 million in 2011.148

India

In 2011, India was the 13th-largest single-country U.S. trading partner. U.S.-India twoway merchandise trade was valued at $53.7 billion that year, accounting for 1.5 percent 

of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. imports of goods grew more rapidly than 

U.S. exports of goods, resulting in an increase in the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with 

India from $13.2 billion in 2010 to $18.3 billion in 2011 (figure 5.17). Among its major 

trading partners, the United States registered a services trade deficit only with India in 

2011, a result of high levels of U.S. imports of computer and information services from 

India. The U.S. trade deficit in services with India amounted to $5.3 billion in 2011, a 

58.5 percent increase over the $3.3 billion deficit in 2010. U.S. imports of Indian services 

increased from $13.7 billion in 2010 to $16.9 billion in 2011, while U.S. exports of 

services to India increased from $10.3 billion in 2010 to $11.6 billion in 2011 (figure 

5.18). 

U.S. merchandise exports to India increased by 7.8 percent, from $16.4 billion in 2010 to 

$17.7 billion in 2011. Leading U.S. exports to India included diammonium phosphate, 

coal, nonmonetary gold, aircraft and aircraft parts, and nonindustrial diamonds. 

FIGURE 5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2007–11 FIGURE 5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2007–11a

 

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a

Data for 2011 are preliminary. 

 147 JECFA, an independent scientific committee that performs risk assessments to assist Codex in 

developing international food standards and guidelines, recommended MRLs for ractopamine use in cattle 

and swine in 2004, and reconfirmed the MRLs in 2006 and 2010 after further research. AIT, “The Facts 

about U.S. Beef and Ractopamine,” February 21, 2012. 148 USDA, FAS, FAS Online database (accessed March 16, 2012). On April 24, 2012, a dairy cow in 

California was discovered to have BSE. The government of Taiwan has stated that it would only suspend 

imports of U.S. beef if the OIE downgraded the classification of the United States. Taipei Times, “U.S. Beef 

Ban Dependent on OIE Report,” April 27, 2012. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-27 

U.S. imports from India amounted to $36.0 billion in 2011, representing a 21.6 percent 

increase from $29.6 billion in 2010. Leading U.S. imports from India were nonindustrial 

diamonds, petroleum-related products, certain medicaments for retail sale, and precious 

jewelry and jewelry parts. U.S.-India merchandise trade data are shown in appendix 

tables A.49 through A.51. 

During 2011, the United States and India continued discussions of diverse bilateral trade 

and economic issues, including high-technology trade, infrastructure investment, and IPR 

awareness and enforcement under the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF). Several 

issues remained challenges in the trade relationship. India continued to maintain nontariff 

barriers on U.S. exports of agricultural products, including cereal grains. In late 

November, the Indian government announced approval of majority foreign direct 

investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail stores, only to suspend the policy less than two 

weeks after the announcement. Additionally, India remained on USTR’s Special 301 

priority watch list as the United States continues to recommend that India improve its 

copyright laws, patent regimes, and data protection systems. More information on 

bilateral trade and investment, India’s agricultural policy, and IPR is provided below. 

Trade and Investment Dialogue

In 2011, the U.S.-India TPF remained the principal forum for bilateral trade, investment, 

and economic dialogue between the two countries, as it has been since its inception in 

2005.149 In 2010, U.S. and Indian officials signed a Framework for Cooperation on Trade 

and Investment with the intent to strengthen bilateral cooperation, building upon recent 

rapid growth in trade. 150 Throughout 2011, U.S. and Indian officials met to discuss 

strengthening the TPF and agreed to revise its structure to advance trade and investment 

issues.151 U.S. and Indian officials also worked to promote several objectives outlined in 

the framework, including the promotion of high-technology cooperation, infrastructure 

investment, investment policy, SME trade development, and IPR awareness and 

enforcement, among other topics.152

During a U.S. high-technology trade mission to India, held February 6–11 to promote 

trade and technological cooperation, U.S. and Indian officials discussed how market 

barriers—including tariff and nontariff barriers, restrictions on FDI, and limited IPR 

protection—may affect U.S. companies in the Indian market.153 U.S. and Indian officials 

also met several times during 2011 to discuss U.S. involvement in infrastructure 

development, planning a U.S. infrastructure trade mission for 2012.154 Additionally, U.S. 

and Indian officials resumed technical-level negotiations on a bilateral investment 

treaty.155

 149 USTR, “Countries and Regions: India,” accessed March 13, 2012. 150 USTR, “United States––India Trade Policy Forum,” March 17, 2010. 151 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012. 152 USTR, “United States and India Sign Framework,” March 17, 2010; USTR, “U.S.-India Trade 

Policy Forum Facts,” September 2010; USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 

2011, 145. 153 USDOC, “Secretary Locke Delivers Keynote Address,” February 7, 2011; USDOC, “U.S. 

Commerce Secretary Locke, India Commerce and Industry Minister Sharma,” February 7, 2011; USDOC, 

ITA, “Mission Statement: Secretarial India High Technology,” February 2011. 154 USDOS, “Assistant Secretary Jose W. Fernandez Traveling to India,” March 7, 2011; USDOT, 

“Joint statement on the 2011 U.S.-India Economic and Financial Partnership,” June 28, 2011; USDOC, “U.S. 

Commerce Secretary John Bryson,” December 16, 2011. 155 USTR, “Readout of Ambassador Kirk’s Bilateral Meeting,” June 2011; USTR, “Ambassador Kirk 

and Indian Minister Sharma Work,” September 2011. 
5-28 

Agriculture and Food Trade and Investment Policy

Indian policymakers manage the supply of agricultural commodities in the domestic 

market by making frequent changes in policies that affect trade. India regularly adjusts 

restrictions, taxes, and subsidies on foreign trade in agricultural commodities in order to 

influence the price and quantity in the Indian market, with the intended goal of achieving 

food security and price stability for low-income farmers and consumers. When stocks of 

agricultural commodities are low, India often tries to increase the domestic supply by 

banning exports, subsidizing imports, lowering tariffs, and relaxing nontariff measures 

such as SPS measures. Conversely, when domestic stocks reach capacity, India typically 

subsidizes exports and bans or restricts imports using tariffs and nontariff measures.156

Because India is home to one-sixth of the world’s food consumers and one-tenth of the 

world’s farmland,157 changes in India’s agricultural trade policies impact global trade in 

agricultural commodities, including staple crops produced by the United States. Because 

restrictive policies are changed frequently, exporters face uncertainty when exporting 

agricultural commodities to India, further hampering trade. 

Cereal Grains 

The United States is the largest global exporter of cereal grains, and these products made 

up 2.2 percent of global U.S. exports in 2011. With the world’s second-largest 

population, India is one of the largest consumers of cereal grains, including wheat and 

rice and, increasingly, corn and barley.158 Despite U.S. competitiveness in cereal grains 

and the large size of the Indian consumer market for these products, cereal grains made 

up less than 0.01 percent of U.S. exports to India in 2011 and have not made up more 

than 0.02 percent of U.S. exports to India over the last 10 years. While India has recently 

been a surplus producer of cereal grains, production frequently falls short of meeting 

domestic demand due to variations in the monsoon season, which dictates the output of 

annual harvests.159

The low volume of U.S. exports of cereal grains to India is the result of Indian nontariff 

measures. In 2011, India’s tariffs on wheat, rice, and barley remained at zero, while corn 

was subject to a zero tariff-rate quota (TRQ) of 500,000 metric tons. However, U.S. 

wheat and barley imports into India remained constrained by SPS measures, such as strict 

prohibitions on certain weed seeds. In bilateral discussions on the issue of SPS measures, 

including at the senior level, little progress has been achieved between the United States 

and India.160 However, in June 2011, U.S. and Indian officials agreed to collaborate by 

exchanging scientific information on barley pests.161 Other nontariff measures restrict 

cereal imports from all trade partners. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) dominate all major 

cereal grain markets. The rationale for SOE involvement is that they are supposed to 

balance affordability to consumers and industrial users with the interests of rural farmers; 

as a result, cereal grain imports are subject to a government procurement system which 

 156 USITC, India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures, November 2009, 5-7. 157 USCIA, “India,” The World Factbook, accessed March 13, 2012. 158 USDA, FAS, “India: Grain and Feed Annual 2011,” February 23, 2011; USDA, FAS, “India: Grain 

and Feed Annual 2012,” February 23, 2012. 159 Ibid. 160 In March 2012, USTR requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with India concerning 

India’s ban on imports of U.S. poultry and eggs. USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Enforces Rights,” 

March 2012. 161 USTR, 2012 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2012, 53. 
5-29 

has lacked transparency and has been subject to domestic policy prescriptions.162 Imports 

under the TRQ on corn are only open for purchase by India’s SOEs; corn imported 

outside the TRQ is subject to a 50 percent duty.163

FDI in Food Retail

Within the past five years, a modern food retail sector has emerged in India, valued at $4 

to $5 billion and growing annually by 20 percent. The high growth in this sector may 

offer the United States, India’s primary supplier of consumer food imports, opportunities 

to expand exports and investment within the market.164 On November 24, 2011, the 

government of India announced the approval of up to 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail 

stores, permitting foreign expansion from wholesale operations to allow direct vending to 

consumers. The government of India viewed this as a mechanism for increasing 

investment in food logistics, value chains, and processing in order to minimize food loss 

due to poor handling and reduce high inflation in food prices.165 However, less than two 

weeks after approval, the policy allowing FDI in multi-brand retail was suspended until 

further notice due to opposition by supporters of traditional retail.166

Intellectual Property Rights

India remained on USTR’s priority watch list of countries with significant IPR problems 

that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation in 2011.167 India has been on the 

Priority Watch List since 1989.168 In 2011, USTR identified incremental improvements 

concerning IPR legislative, administrative, and enforcement issues. Nonetheless, USTR 

urged India to pass legislation that would implement the WIPO Internet treaties, which 

provide for copyright protection in the digital environment and which would bring India’s 

copyright law into line with international standards. USTR further recommended that 

India take action to improve its patent regime by not limiting the patentability of certain 

chemical forms, by reducing backlogs in patent applications, and by streamlining 

opposition proceedings. In addition, USTR encouraged India to provide an effective 

system for the protection of undisclosed test and other data generated to obtain the Indian 

government’s approval for marketing pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals.169

Russia

In 2011, Russia was the United States’ 20th largest trading partner, accounting for 1.2 

percent of total two-way U.S. trade. U.S. merchandise trade with Russia increased 33.7 

percent, rising from $30.9 billion in 2010 to $41.2 billion in 2011. The U.S. merchandise 

trade deficit with Russia increased by one-third, from $19.5 billion in 2010 to nearly 

 162 USDA, FAS, “India: Grain and Feed Annual 2011,” February 23, 2011; USDA, FAS, “India: Grain 

and Feed Annual 2012,” February 23, 2012; USITC, India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures,

November 2009, 6–13. 163 USDA, FAS, “India: Grain and Feed Annual 2011,” February 23, 2011; USDA, FAS, “India: Grain 

and Feed Annual 2012,” February 23, 2012. 164 USDA, FAS, “India: Exporter Guide 2011,” December 29, 2011. 165 USDA, FAS, “India: The Government of India Approves FDI,” December 1, 2011. 166 USDA, FAS, “India: Multi-Brand Retail Investment Policy Suspended,” December 12, 2011. 167 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2011, 28; USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report, April 30, 

2012, 35. 168 International Intellectual Property Alliance, 2011 Special 301: Historical Summary, February 15, 

2011, 18. 169 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2011, 28. 
5-30 

$26.0 billion in 2011 (figure 5.19). The increase in the deficit was partly attributable to 

the rising world price of crude petroleum, since petroleum-related products represented 

over two-thirds of the value of U.S. imports from Russia.170 In 2011, U.S. merchandise 

imports from Russia ($33.6 billion) were nearly four and one-half times larger than U.S. 

exports to Russia by value ($7.6 billion). Data are not available for U.S. trade in private 

services with Russia. 

U.S. merchandise exports to Russia increased 35.0 percent to $7.6 billion in 2011, up 

from $5.7 billion in 2010. Leading U.S. exports to Russia included non-electrical 

machinery, such as boring or sinking machinery and related parts, gas turbines, and 

excavators; vehicles and parts thereof, including passenger automobiles, tractors, and 

dump trucks; meat, including beef, pork, and chicken; and aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 

thereof.

U.S. merchandise imports from Russia increased 33.4 percent, from $25.2 billion in 2010 

to $33.6 billion in 2011. Leading U.S. imports from Russia were largely petroleumrelated products, accounting for nearly 70 percent of U.S. imports from Russia. U.S.-

Russian merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.52 through A.54. 

Following 18 years of negotiations, in 2011 Russia was invited to join the WTO. 

However, the United States continued to raise concerns regarding Russia’s agricultural 

restrictions and inadequate protection of IPR, which are discussed below. 

WTO Accession 

On December 16, 2011, WTO members invited Russia to accede to the WTO. The 

invitation is open for 220 days from the announcement of their decision (until July 23, 

2012).171

Agricultural Import Quotas

Despite its pending accession to the WTO, Russia continues to maintain a number of 

import restrictions, such as TRQs; customs charges and fees that exceed the cost of 

 FIGURE 5.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, 2007–11 

 

 Source: USDOC. 

 170 USDOS, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Background Note: Russia, November 2, 2011. 171 WTO, “Accession of the Russian Federation––Decision of 16 December 2011,” December 17, 

2011.

-35

-25

-15

-5

5

15

25

35

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-31 

providing the service; valuation procedures that inflate tariff charges; and burdensome 

licensing, registration, and certification regimes.172 Agricultural imports are in particular 

subject to significant TRQs and burdensome SPS regulations.173

On December 15, 2010, Russia announced new import TRQs for beef, pork, and poultry 

in 2011.174 Both the global TRQ and the TRQ allocated to the United States remained at 

the same levels as 2010 for beef (fresh and frozen) and pork (pork and pork trimmings) 

(table 5.1). However, the TRQ for poultry (chicken and turkey meat) was reduced 

sharply, from 780 thousand metric tons (tmt) in 2010 to 350 tmt in 2011. The product 

definition was also narrowed in scope, and no country-specific allocations for poultry 

were set. 175 For beef and pork, country-specific allocations went into effect in two, 

unequal stages: first, 25 percent of the annual quota for the first quarter of 2011, followed 

next by the remaining 75 percent for the second, third, and fourth quarters.176

As in previous years, meat exports to Russia in 2011 continued to be subject to SPS 

measures often considered obstructive by exporters. 177 In 2011, bilateral negotiations 

with Russia over a number of issues, such as SPS measures and technical barriers to 

trade, came to be addressed increasingly in broader plurilateral negotiations with key 

WTO members––such as the United States, the EU, and Japan––in efforts to finalize the 

terms of Russia’s final WTO accession package, which was reached in November 

2011.178

Intellectual Property

Although Russia has taken significant steps in the past year to improve IPR protection 

and enforcement, it remained on USTR’s Special 301 priority watch list.179 Key concerns 

in 2011 included piracy over the Internet, the absence of liability legislation to protect 

Internet service providers, and lax enforcement of IPR in general, which have led to large 

losses for U.S. audiovisual as well as other companies and are an ongoing irritant in U.S.-

Russia trade relations.180

Russia enacted further legislation in 2011 addressing various aspects of IPR laws, 

although enforcement continued to lag. In July 2011, the Russian parliament ratified the 

Agreement on Unified Principles of Regulation in the Sphere of Intellectual Property 

 172 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012. 173 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 140. 174 USDA, FAS, Russia Announces 2011 TRQ Quantities, December 27, 2010; Government of Russia 

Resolution #1111 of December 24, 2010. 175 The poultry product definition was reduced to the four Russian import categories of frozen deboned 

chicken meat; frozen bone-in chicken halves or quarters; frozen bone-in chicken legs and cuts from them; and 

frozen deboned turkey meat. USDA, FAS, Russia Announces 2011 TRQ Quantities, December 27, 2010. 176 Barinova, “Russian Meat Import Quotas,” April 29, 2011. 177 The ban on poultry meat treated with chlorine-water solution, effective January 1, 2010, was lifted 

later in that year, allowing U.S. exports of poultry meat to Russia to resume in the last quarter of 2010. For 

further details, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 5-31 to 5-33. 178 Inside Washington Publishers, “Deals on SPS, TRIMS Remain Elusive,” August 19, 2011; Inside 

Washington Publishers, “Russian TRQs in Accession Deal,” November 18, 2011. 179 USTR, 2011 Special 301 Report, April 2011, 25. 180 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012; USDOS, 

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Background Note: Russia, November 2, 2011. 
5-32 

TABLE 5.1 Russian tariff-rate quota quantities for meat and poultry, 2007-2011a

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

 Thousand metric tons 

Total 2,125.3 2,179.0 1,963.4 1,840.0 1,410.0

Beef (fresh/chilled/frozen) 468.3 473.9 479.5 560.0 560.0

 United States 18.1 18.3 18.5 21.7 21.7

Pork (pork and pork trimmings) 484.8 493.5 531.9 500.0 500.0

 United States 49.0 49.8 100.0 57.5 57.5

Poultry (fresh/chilled/frozen) 1,172.2 1,211.6 952.0 780.0 350.0

 United States 871.4 901.4 750.0 600.0 (b

)

Source: USDA, FAS, “Russia Announces 2011 TRQ Quantities,” December 27, 2010. 

a

On December 25, 2010, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development announced the initial distribution of 2011 

tariff-rate quota (TRQ) quantities to importers, sharply reducing the poultry TRQ from 780 tmt in 2010 to 350 tmt in 

2011, as well as narrowing the poultry product scope and no longer allocating country-specific TRQs for poultry. 

Beef (fresh and frozen) and pork (pork and pork trimmings) TRQs remained unchanged from 2010. b

No country-specific allocations in 2011. 

Rights Protection, as agreed by the Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia Customs Union 

(CU) in December 2010.181 The agreement provides for the establishment of a Customs 

Register of Intellectual Property Objects under the CU,182 allowing non-CU members to 

register trademarks as well as establishing a structure through which nonmembers can 

address IPR border enforcement. The agreement is expected to enter into effect in 

2012. 183 Other legislative progress made during the year was the establishment in 

December 2011 of an Intellectual Property Court to deal with patents, trademarks, and 

IPR infringement, which is expected to begin work in February 2013.184

Although recording companies have won civil suits against Internet pirates in Russia in 

the past, authorities for the first time in October 2011 brought criminal charges against 

Web site administrators offering pirated copies of movies, estimated to have caused 

roughly $1.25 billion in damages. 185 During the year, Russian law enforcement also 

continued to carry out raids on optical disc production facilities suspected of pirating 

activities, despite frequent leaks in advance to targeted optical disc plants of “surprise” 

raids. 186 Russian police have also continued to carry out raids on business end-users 

using pirated products. 

 181 Bankovsky, “Russia––Long-Awaited Russian IP Court,” January 2012. For further details on the 

Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia Customs Union, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, 5-29. 182 Federal Customs Service of Russia, “Regulation on Protection of Intellectual Property Rights,” n.d., 

http://www.russiancustoms.org/fbusiness/ENGCustomsrelatedissues/printable02ef.html?id695=2959&i695=1&print=1

(accessed April 11, 2012). 183 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012; Bankovsky, 

“Russia––New Development in Customs Union,” October 2011. 184 Bankovsky, “Russia––Long-Awaited Russian IP Court,” January 2012. 185 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012. 186 Ibid. 
Biblio-1

Bibliography________________________________________

Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on 

Government Procurement, February 11–12, 2010.

Ahearn, Raymond J. U.S.-EU Trade and Economic Relations: Key Policy Issues for the 112th Congress.

Congressional Research Service. CRS Report for Congress R41652, January 18, 2012.

American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. Insurance Committee. “Ensure that the Ongoing Postal 

Reform Debate Does Not Ignore Consumer Protection.” Viewpoint. Tokyo: ACCJ, March 8, 

2012. http://www.accj.or.jp/images/downloads/public/en/viewpoints/1201%20JPCPINS.pdf.

American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei. “AmCham Urges Early Scheduling of TIFA Talks.” Press 

release, February 9, 2010.

American Institute in Taiwan. “The Facts about U.S. Beef and Ractopamine.” News & Events, February 

21, 2012. http://www.ait.org.tw/en/officialtext-ot1201.html.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “2010 Leaders’ Declaration: Yokohama Declaration; the 

Yokohama Vision; Bogor and Beyond.” Yokohama, Japan, November 13–14,

2010. http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2010/2010_aelm.aspx.

———. “2011 APEC Ministerial Meeting: Statement.” Ministerial Meeting, November 11, 

2011. http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/MinisterialStatements/Annual/2011/2011_amm.aspx.

———. “2011 Leaders’ Declaration: The Honolulu Declaration; Toward a Seamless Regional 

Economy.” Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, November 12–13,

2011. http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2011/2011_aelm.aspx.

———.”2011 Meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade: Statement of the Chair,” May 19–20,

2011. http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Ministerial-Statements/Trade/2011_trade.aspx.

———. “APEC Ministers’ Statement on the WTO, the Doha Development Agenda Negotiations, and 

Resisting Protectionism.” Ministerial Meeting, November 11, 

2011. http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Ministerial-Statements/Annual/2011/2011_amm/ddastatement.aspx.

———. “Leaders’ Statement on the 2010 Bogor Goals Assessment.” Economic Leaders’ Meeting,

November 14, 2010. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1094.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Committee on Trade and Investment. Annual Report to 

Ministers: 2011. APEC#211-CT-01.5. Honolulu: APEC, November 

2011. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1209.
Biblio-2

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Policy Support Unit. The Mutual Usefulness between APEC 

and TPP. APEC#211-SE-01.5. Singapore: APEC, October 

2011. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1194.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Secretariat. APEC at a Glance, 2012. APEC#212-SE-05.1.

Singapore: APEC, January 2012. http://publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=1246.

———. Outcomes & Outlook 2011–12. APEC#212-SE-05.2. Singapore: APEC, January 

2012. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1247.

Bankovsky, Anton. “Russia: Long-Awaited Russian IP Court Finally Becomes Reality.” Intellectual 

Property Newsletter. Hogan Lovells (CIS), January 

2012. http://ehoganlovells.com/rv/ff00021a97fc11ec9226caf7d047a4803308fbdd/p=6.

———. “Russia: New Development in Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.” Intellectual 

Property Newsletter. Hogan Lovells (CIS), October 

2011. http://ehoganlovells.com/rv/ff0001d408df886bd0bca6f4ec41937fce0b680a/p=5.

Barinova, Alla. “Russian Meat Import Quotas for Rest of 2011 Allocated.” Bord Bia [Irish Food Meat 

Board]. Moscow, April 29, 

2011. http://www.bordbia.ie/industryservices/alerts/Pages/Russianmeatimportquotasforrestof2011

allocated.aspx?src=home.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. “Foreign Exchange Rates: G.5A Annual,”

n.d. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g5a/current/default.htm (accessed April 9, 2012).

———. “Foreign Exchange Rates: H.10 Weekly,” January 3, 

2012. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/Summary.

———. “Indexes of the Foreign Exchange Value of the Dollar.” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Winter 

2005,1–8.

———. Monetary Policy Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve, July 13, 2011.

———. Monetary Policy Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve, February 29, 2012.

Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank. Quarterly Status 

Report, December 31, 2011. http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/FreqUpdates/JointStatusReport.pdf.

Campbell, Kurt M. U.S. Department of State. Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee 

on Foreign Affairs. “Why Taiwan Matters, Part II,” October 4,

2011. http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2011/10/174980.htm.

CentralAmericaData.com. “Maquila Heads to Haiti from Guatemala,” November 1, 

2011. http://www.centralamericadata.com/en/article/home/Manufacturers_Head_to_Haiti_from_

Guatemala.

CIA, see U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Biblio-3

Clyde & Co. The Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami: Second Report, August 

2011. http://www.clydeco.com/uploads/Files/Publications/2011/Tohoku_Earthquake_Tsunami_A

ug2011.pdf.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “CEC Ministerial Statement, 2011: Eighteenth 

Regular Session of the CEC Council,” June 22, 

2011. http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=25138&SiteNodeID=219&BL_Ex

pandID=158.

———. “Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters: A Guide to Articles 14 and 15,”

n.d. http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1388&SiteNodeID=210 (accessed

April 5, 2012).

———. “Submissions on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions,”

n.d. http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=544 (accessed April 4, 2012).

———. “Commission for Environmental Cooperation: Three Countries Working Together to Protect our 

Shared Environment,” n.d. http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=310

(accessed April 5, 2012).

Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC). Secretariat. “The National Administrative Offices,”

n.d. http://www.naalc.org/commission/nao.htm (accessed April 4, 2012).

———. Migrant Workers’ Rights in North America: Comparative Guides to Labor and Employment 

Laws in North America. Washington, DC: CLC, 2011. http://new.naalc.org/userfiles/file/CLCMigrant%20Workers%20-%20English.pdf.

Cooper, William H. Russia’s Accession to the WTO and Its Implications for the United States. 

Congressional Research Service. CRS Report to Congress R42085, January 30, 2012.

Cooper, William H., Mark K. Manyin, Remy Jurenas, and Michaela D. Plastzer. The U.S.-South Korea 

Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications. Congressional Research 

Service. CRS Report to Congress RL34330, November 30, 2011.

Cutler, Wendy. Assistant U.S. Trade Representative. Remarks at the Brookings Institution. Symposium 

on “Japan and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” December 2, 

2011. http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/1202_transpacific_partnership.aspx.

De Gucht, Karel. European Commissioner for Trade. “Going Global: EU Trade Relations with Major 

Trading Partners.” Speech at the Business Europe, Brussels, October 6, 

2011. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148266.pdf.

Dong-A Ilbo. “Gov’t Moves to Ease Consumer Fears over U.S. Beef,” April 25, 

2012. http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2012042697858.

European Commission. “EU and U.S. Boost Economic Partnership.” Press release, November 29, 

2011. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1481&type=HTML.
Biblio-4

———. “European Union-United States SME Best Practices Exchange, Joint Report.” Brussels, June 28–

29, 2011. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/july/tradoc_148066.pdf.

European Commission. Directorate General for Trade. “ACTA: Questions and Answers,” February 

2012. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/questions-and-answers/.

G20. “G20, 2012, Mexico,” n.d. http://www.g20.org/ (accessed March 28, 2012).

Government of Canada. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. “Canada Signs 

Telecommunications Cooperation Agreement with Mexico.” News release, November 13, 

2011. http://www.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/newscommuniques/2011/345.aspx?view=d.

———. “Ed Fast: Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway,”

n.d. http://www.international.gc.ca/commerce/edward_fast.aspx?lang=eng&view=d (accessed

April 4, 2012).

Government of Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Canada-United States Agreement on 

Government Procurement: Report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, by Lee 

Richardson, MP. 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, May 2010.

Government of Japan. Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet. “Press Conference by Prime Minister 

Yoshihiko Noda on the Occasion of the 19th APEC Economic Leaders Meeting.” Speeches and 

Statements, November 13, 

2011. http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201111/13naigai_e.html.

Government of New Zealand. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. “Long Days and Nights in 

Singapore.” TPP Talk, May 16, 2011. http://mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-

Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/1-TPP-Talk/0-TPP-talk-16-May-2011.php.

Gulyaeva, Natalia, and Maria Eritsyan. “Russia: New Rules for IP Agreements.” Intellectual Property 

Newsletter. Hogan Lovells (CIS), Spring 2009. http://www.cipr.org/files/Lovells_6450.pdf.

Hammond-Chambers, Rupert J. President, US-Taiwan Business Council. Testimony before the House of 

Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs. “Why Taiwan Matters,” June 16, 

2011. http://www.ustaiwan.org/reports/2011_june16_why_taiwan_matters_testimony_to_house_committee_on_forei

gn_affairs.pdf.

Hornbeck, J.F. The U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement. Congressional Research Service. CRS Report to 

Congress RL32540, October 27, 2011.

Inside Washington Publishers. “Canadian Minister Shows Willingness to Address Lumber Issues in

TPP.” World Trade Online database, January 27, 2012.

———. “China GPA Offer Covers Some Sub-Central Entities, But Gives Little Else.” World Trade 

Online database, December 9, 2011.
Biblio-5

———. “Deals on SPS, TRIMS Remain Elusive in Russia WTO Negotiations.” World Trade Online 

database, August 19, 2011.

———. “Finance Plans Russia MFN Hearing in March, Obama Briefly Mentions Russia.” World Trade 

Online database, January 26, 2012.

———. “Lamy Signals Intent to Step Down in 2013 at End of Current Term.” World Trade Online 

database, December 17, 2011.

———. “Ministerial Wraps Up with Two Victories, But U.S.-China Tension Lingers.” World Trade 

Online database, December 20, 2011.

———. “Russian TRQs in Accession Deal Lock In Reduced Access for U.S. Poultry.” World Trade 

Online database, November 18, 2011.

———. “U.S., Canada Enter Preliminary Stage of Broadening Bilateral Procurement.” World Trade 

Online database, February 18, 2011.

Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). “Haiti and Its Partners Lay the Foundation Stone for the 

Caracol Industrial Park.” News releases, November 28, 2011. http://www.iadb.org/en/news/newsreleases/2011-11-28/caracol-industrial-park-in-haiti,9724.html.

International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). “Appendix D: Historical Summary of Selected 

Countries’ Placement for Copyright-related Matters on the Special 301 Lists.” In 2011 Special 

301 Report: Written Submission Regarding the Identification of Countries under Section 182 of 

the Trade Act of 1974, February 15, 2011. http://www.iipa.com/2011_SPEC301_TOC.htm.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). World Economic Outlook April 2012: Growth Resuming, Dangers 

Remain. Washington, DC: IMF, April 2012.

Just-style.com. “Haiti: Apparel Jobs Key to New Industrial Park,” November 29, 2011. http://www.juststyle.com.

———. “Haiti: New Duty-Free Industrial Zone Approved,” February 13, 2012. http://www.juststyle.com.

London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of 

America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; Canada’s Response to Request for Arbitration,”

February 18, 2011. http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/softwoodbois_oeuvre/other-autres/disp_Settlement-reglement_diff.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=68&view=d.

———. “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; 

Canada’s Statement of Defence, Non-Confidential,” November 16, 

2011. http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/softwood-bois_oeuvre/otherautres/disp_Settlement-reglement_diff.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=68&view=d.
Biblio-6

———. “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; 

Request for Arbitration,” January 18, 2011. http://www.international.gc.ca/controlscontroles/softwood-bois_oeuvre/other-autres/disp_Settlementreglement_diff.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=68&view=d.

———. “In the LCIA, No. 111790: The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; 

United States Statement of Case, Non-Confidential Version,” August 16, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/enforcement/dispute-settlement-proceedings/2006-

softwood-lumber-agreement.

———. “United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent: No. 81010; Award,” January 20, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/enforcement/dispute-settlement-proceedings/2006-

softwood-lumber-agreement.

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). “September 20, 2010 Announcement of June 2009 

Business Cycle Trough/End of Last Recession,” n.d. In “Information on Recessions and 

Recoveries, the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee, and Related Topics,”

n.d. http://www.nber.org/cycles/main.html (accessed April 9, 2012).

National Police Agency of Japan. “Damage Situation and Police Countermeasures Associated with 2011 

Tohoku District: Off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake,” April 1, 

2011. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/EDF3A2B4C984A9A0492578650024

67F4-Full_Report.pdf.

Nichol, Jim. Russian Political, Economic, and Security Issues and U.S. Interests. Congressional Research 

Service. CRS Report for Congress RL33407, February 10, 2012.

North American Development Bank (NADB). “Summary of Project Implementation Activities: Active 

Projects,” December 31, 2011. http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/FreqUpdates/ProjectMatrix.pdf.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Secretariat. “Overview of the Dispute Settlement 

Provisions,” n.d. http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=226 (accessed April 6, 2012).

———. “Status Report of Dispute Settlement Proceedings.” NAFTA: Chapter 19 Active Cases,

n.d. http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/StatusReportResults.aspx (accessed April 6, 2012).

Office of the Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. “Press Conference by Prime Minister Yoshihiko 

Noda on the Occasion of the 19th APEC Economic Leaders Meeting.” Speeches and Statements 

by the Prime Minister, November 13, 

2011. http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201111/13naigai_e.html.

OIE, see World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Council. “Meeting of the Council at 

Ministerial Level, 25–26 May 2011: Chair’s Summary.” C/MIN(2011)14, May 26, 2011.

———. “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 25–26 May 2011: Discussion Notes.”

C/MIN(2011)2, April 29, 2011.
Biblio-7

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate. 

Participants to the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits. “Arrangement on 

Officially Supported Export Credits: March 2011.” TAD/PG(2011)4, March 3, 2011.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate. 

Trade Committee. “158th Session of the Trade Committee: Confidential Session; Draft Agenda; 

9–10 November 2011.” TAD/TC/A(2011)2/ANN, August 5, 2011.

———. “158th Session of the Trade Committee: Plenary Session; Draft Agenda; 9–10 November 2011.”

TAD/TC/A(2011)2, October 20, 2011.

———. “Summary Record: 157th Session of the Trade Committee; Confidential Session; 4–5 May 

2011.” TAD/TC/M(2011)1/ANN, October 28, 2011.

———. “Summary Record: 157th Session of the Trade Committee; Plenary Session; 4–5 May 2011.”

TAD/TC/M(2011)1, October 28, 2011.

———. “Summary Record: 157th Session of the Trade Committee; Session with the Participation of G20 

Members; 4–5 May 2011.” TAD/TC/M(2011)1/ADD, October 28, 2011.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/World Trade Organization (WTO).

Aid for Trade and LDCs: Starting to Show Results. Paris: OECD, July 

2011. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/a4t_ldcs_e.pdf.

Secretaría de Gobernación. Secretaría de Economía. Diario Oficial de la Federación [Mexico’s Federal 

Register], March 18, 2009. http://dof.gob.mx/index.php?year=2009&month=03&day=18.

Sekiguchi, Toko. “Japan Nears Deal on Postal Privatization.” Wall Street Journal, March 25, 

2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577303353507499354.html.

Taipei Times. “Taiwan, U.S. in First TIFA Talks in Three Years,” October 1, 

2010. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2010/10/01/2003484259.

———. “U.S. Beef Ban Dependent on OIE Report,” April 27, 

2012. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/04/27/2003531390.

Takada, Aya, Yasumasa Song, and Elizabeth Campbell. “Record U.S. Beef Sales Seen as Japan Reviews 

Curbs on Cattle: Commodities.” Bloomberg News, January 24, 

2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/record-u-s-beef-sales-seen-as-japan-reviewscurbs-on-cattle-commodities.html.

Trade Reports International Group. “Around the Globe.” Washington Trade Daily, September 15, 2011.

———. “Canada’s Mr. Fast.” Washington Trade Daily, October 18, 2011.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). “India.” World Factbook,

n.d. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (accessed March 13, 2012).
Biblio-8

———. “World.” World Factbook, n.d. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

(accessed March 13, 2012).

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Subject: Renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) and 

Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA).” Memorandum from Brenda B. 

Smith. Executive Director. Trade Policy and Programs. Office of International Trade, October 24, 

2011. http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/trade_programs/international_agreements/speci

al_trade_programs/atpa/atpdea.ctt/atpdea.pdf.

———. “Subject: Renewal of the Generalized System of Preference (GSP).” Memorandum from Brenda 

B. Smith. Executive Director. Trade Policy and Programs. Office of International Trade, October 

24,

2011. http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/trade_programs/international_agreements/speci

al_trade_programs/gsp_gen_system/mem_gsp.ctt/mem_gsp.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Statement from Agriculture Secretary Vilsack on Tragedies in 

Japan, Effects on U.S. Food Imports.” Press release, March 18, 

2011. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=radiation_

safety.html.

———. “Update from USDA Regarding a Detection of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the 

United States.” Press release no. 0136.12, April 26, 2012.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2012/04/0136.x

ml.

———. “USDA Awards Additional MAP Funds to USMEF.” Press release no. 0196.11, May 4, 

2011. http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDAOC-6e643.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS). “Top 15 U.S. Export

Destinations, by Calendar Year, U.S. Value.” Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States 

(FATUS) database, n.d. (accessed February 13, 2012).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). “Approved TAA 

Commodities,” n.d. http://www.taaforfarmers.org/ApprovedCommodities.aspx (accessed

December 28, 2011).

———. Customs Union Announces Meat and Poultry TRQ Quantities for 2011. GAIN Report no. 

RS1072, December 17, 2010.

———. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) database, n.d. (accessed various 

dates). http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/reports.asp.

———. Grain: World Markets and Trade. Circular Series FG 02–12, February 2012.

———. India: 2011; Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN Report no. IN1117, February 23, 2011.

———. India: 2011; Exporter Guide. GAIN Report no. IN1215, December 29, 2011.
Biblio-9

———. India: Grain and Feed Annual, 2012. GAIN Report no. IN2026, February 23, 2012.

———. India: Grain and Feed Update. GAIN Report no. IN1170, August 5, 2011.

———. India: Grain and Feed Update. GAIN Report no. IN1200, October 28, 2011.

———. India: Grain and Feed Voluntary Update; October 2011. GAIN Report no. IN1195, October 4, 

2011.

———. India: Grain Voluntary: February 2012 Update. GAIN Report no. IN2018, February 6, 2012.

———. India: May 2011; Grain and Feed Update. GAIN Report no. IN1142, April 27, 2011.

———. India: Multi-Brand Retail Investment Policy Suspended. GAIN Report no. IN1211, December 

12, 2011.

———. India: The Government of India Approves FDI in Multi-Brand Retail. GAIN Report no. IN1208, 

December 1, 2011.

———. “Notice to Program Participants of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program 

from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.” Press release, April 4,

2011. http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/PressRelease/pressrel_dout.asp?Entry=valid&PrNum=00

63-11.

———. Russia Announces 2011 TRQ Quantities. GAIN Report no. RS1078, December 27, 2010.

———. Taiwan: Conclusion of the 2011 Rice CSQ Tenders. GAIN Report no. TW11022, December 30, 

2011.

———. “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program,” May 13, 

2010. http://www.fas.usda.gov/ITP/TAA/taafaqs.asp.

———. “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program.” Fact sheet, March 

2010. http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/TAAfactsheet.pdf.

———. “U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Benefits for Agriculture.” Fact sheet, April 

2011. http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/Panama/Panama%20TPA%20Detailed%20Fact%2

0Sheet%2004-07-11.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Secretary Locke Delivers Keynote Address on U.S.-India 

Commercial Relations in New Delhi.” Press release, February 7, 

2011. http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr02072011cii2.html.

———. “U.S. Commerce Secretary John Bryson to Lead Infrastructure Trade Mission to India.” Press 

release, December 16, 2011. http://www.mbda.gov/node/1189.
Biblio-10

———. “U.S. Commerce Secretary Locke, India Commerce and Industry Minister Sharma Discuss U.S.-

India Trade Relationship.” Press release, February 7, 2011.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “A Guide to the U.S. 

International Transactions Accounts and the U.S. International Investment Position Accounts,” by 

Christopher L. Bach. Survey of Current Business 90, no. 2 (February 2010): 33–

51. http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/02%20February/0210_guide.pdf.

———. “Cross-Border Trade in 2010 and Services Supplied through Affiliates in 2009,” by Jennifer 

Koncz-Bruner and Anne Flatness. Survey of Current Business 91, no. 10 (October 2011): 13–31,

table 7.2. http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/10%20October/1011_services%20tables.pdf.

———. “Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2011 (Third Estimate) Corporate Profits: 

Fourth Quarter and Annual 2011.” News release BEA 12-11, March 29, 2012.

———. “International Economic Accounts,” n.d. http://www.bea.gov/international/ (accessed March 14, 

2012).

———. “U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data,” March 14, 2012, table 12, “U.S. International 

Transactions, by Area.” http://www.bea.gov/international/bp_web/.

———. “U.S. International Transactions: First Quarter of 2011,” by Sarah P. Scott. Survey of Current 

Business 91, no. 7 (July 2011): 62–69. http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/07%20July/0711_itaqtext.pdf.

———. “U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2011.” News release BEA 12-08,

March 14, 2012.

———. U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2011, “Table 3a: Private Services 

Transactions.” http://www.bea.gov/international/bp_web/.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Economic Development Administration (EDA). Annual 

Report to Congress on the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program Fiscal Year 2010 

Annual Report, December 2010. 

———. Annual Report to Congress on the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program Fiscal Year 

2011 Annual Report, December 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “Mission 

Statement: Secretarial India High Technology Business Development Mission,” February 6–11,

2011. http://www.trade.gov/indiamission2011/statement.asp.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “U.S. Imports under 

Trade Preference Programs,” n.d. http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/agoa-cbtpa/catv0.htm (accessed

February 2012).
Biblio-11

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. Doing Business in 

Canada: 2012 Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies, 

2012. http://www.buyusainfo.net/docs/x_8482281.pdf.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs. Office of Trade and Labor 

Affairs. “Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation,”

n.d. http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/nao/main.htm (accessed April 4, 2012).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment and Training Administration (ETA). “National 

Petition Data,” n.d. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa_reports/petitionsresults.cfm (accessed

December 28, 2011).

———. “Obama Administration Awards Nearly $500 Million in First Round of Grants to Community 

Colleges for Job Training and Workforce Development.” News release 11-1409-NAT, September 

26, 2011. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20111409.htm.

———. “TAA Benefits and Services Levels by TAA-W Number,”

n.d. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/pdf/benefit_serv_by_ta_w_number.pdf (accessed January 4, 

2012).

———. “TAACCCT: Program Summary,” September 28, 2011. http://www.doleta.gov/taaccct/.

———. “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers,” n.d. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/pdf/side-byside.pdf (accessed January 4, 2012).

———. “Trade Adjustment Assistance Petition Process.” February 14, 

2011. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/petitions.cfm.

———. “What Is Trade Adjustment Assistance?” December 22, 

2011. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/factsheet.cfm.

———. Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers: Report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 

Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, December 

2010. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/AnnualReport10.pdf.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the 

Government of Canada,” n.d. http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3740.htm (accessed April 6, 2012).

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican States,”

n.d. http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3742.htm (accessed April 6, 2012).

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States of America,”

n.d. http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3741.htm (accessed April 6, 2012).

———. “Remarks at the First Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) for the Asia Pacific Economic 

Cooperation (APEC) Forum.” March 9,

2011. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/03/157940.htm.
Biblio-12

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. “About the Transatlantic 

Economic Council,” n.d. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/eu/tec/c33255.htm (accessed February 9, 

2012).

———. “Background Note: Russia,” November 2, 2011. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm.

———. “European Union-United States Trade Principles for Information and Communication 

Technology Services,” April 4, 2011. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/eu/tec/171020.htm.

———. “Transatlantic Economic Council: Annexes to the TEC Joint Statement,” November 29, 

2011. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/178419.htm.

———. “Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Investment: Work Plan,” August 5, 

2011. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/eu/tec/172237.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. “Background Note: 

Canada,” December 22, 2011. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Office of the Spokesperson. “Assistant Secretary Jose W. Fernandez 

Traveling to India.” Press release, December 6, 

2011. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/178358.htm.

———. “Assistant Secretary Jose W. Fernandez Traveling to India.” Press release, March 7, 

2011. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/03/157800.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy, Canada. “Canada Introduces Fourth Attempt at 

Copyright Reform (Ottawa 001574),” October 19, 2011.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy, Colombia. “U.S. Agricultural Exports to Increase 

under the FTA (Bogota 000302),” January 30, 2012.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy, Haiti. “Haiti’s Economy Bounces Back (Port-auPrince 000026),” January 12, 2012.

———. “Port-au-Prince 2012 Business Facilitation Incentive Fund Request (Port-au-Prince 000094),”

January 19, 2012.

U.S. Department of the Treasury. “Joint Statement on the 2011 U.S.-India Economic and Financial 

Partnership.” Press release, June 28, 2011. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/pressreleases/Pages/tg1221.aspx.

———. “The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact Sheet: Economic Track,”

May 10, 2011. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/TG1172.aspx.

———. Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Treasury, December 27, 2011.
Biblio-13

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). “Concept Document: Phased U.S.-Mexico Cross-border 

Long Haul Trucking Proposal January 6, 2011.” http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/crossborder/Concept-Trucks-English.pdf.

———. “U.S. Cross-Border Trucking Effort Emphasizes Safety and Efficiency.” Releases and speeches, 

January 6, 2011. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot0111.html.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

“Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transportation of the United States 

of America and the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes of the United Mexican States on 

International Freight Cross-border Trucking Services,”

n.d. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/Mexican_MOU_Eng.pdf (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “United States and Mexico Announce Safe, Secure Cross-Border Trucking Program.” News 

release, July 6, 2011. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2011/mx-trucks.aspx.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Letter to the Honorable Max Baucus and the Honorable Dave 

Camp concerning the Earned Import Allowance Program for Haiti.” GAO Report GAO-12-204R, 

November 30, 2011. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-204R.

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. Overview and Compilation of U.S. 

Trade Statutes, Part I of II: 2010 Edition. 111th Congress, 2nd Session. WMCP:111–6,

December 2010.

U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. Intellectual Property Spotlight. Washington, DC: 

IPEC, September/October 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/intellectualproperty/IPEC_Spotli

ght_August2010.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). An Overview and Examination of the Indian Services 

Sector. USITC Publication No. ID-27. Washington, DC: USITC, 2010.

———. Andean Trade Preference Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Drug Crop 

Eradication and Crop Substitution, 2009. USITC Publication 4188. Washington, DC: USITC, 

September 2010.

———. Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on 

Beneficiary Countries, Twentieth Report, 2009–10. USITC Publication 4271. Washington, DC: 

USITC, September 2011.

———. Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of China, 

Investigation No. TA-421-7. USITC Publication 4085. Washington, D.C.: USITC, July 2009.

———. China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement and Indigenous Innovation Policies on the 

U.S. Economy. USITC Publication 4226. Washington, DC: USITC, May 2011.
Biblio-14

———. China: Intellectual Property Infringement, Indigenous Innovation Policies, and Frameworks for 

Measuring the Effects on the U.S. Economy. USITC Publication 4199 (amended). Washington, 

DC: USITC, November 2010.

———. China’s Agricultural Trade: Competitive Conditions and Effects on U.S. Exports. USITC 

Publication 4219. Washington, DC: USITC, March 2011.

———. Global Beef Trade: Effects of Animal Health, Sanitary, Food Safety, and Other Measures on U.S. 

Beef Exports. USITC Publication 4033. Washington, DC: USITC, September 2008.

———. India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports. USITC 

Publication 4107. Washington, DC: USITC, November 2009.

———. Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb/U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC),

n.d. http://dataweb.usitc.gov (accessed various dates).

———. Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2011 Annual Report. USITC Publication 4243.

Washington, DC: USITC, July 2011.

———. Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2012 Annual Report. USITC Publication 4338.

Washington, DC: USITC, July 2012.

———. Remanufactured Goods: An Overview of the U.S. and Global Industries, Markets, and Trade.

Investigation no. 332-525 (forthcoming).

———. “Remanufactured Goods Trade to be Focus of New USITC Study.” News release, July 21, 2011.

———. The Year in Trade 2006: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 58th Report. USITC 

Publication 3927. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2007.

———. The Year in Trade 2007: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 59th Report. USITC 

Publication 4026. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2008.

———. The Year in Trade 2008: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 60th Report. USITC 

Publication 4091. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2009.

———. The Year in Trade 2009: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 61st Report. USITC 

Publication 4174. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2010.

———. The Year in Trade 2010: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, 62nd Report. USITC 

Publication 4247. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2011.

———. “U.S. Exports of Used Electronics Products Will Be Focus of New USITC Study.” News release, 

January 30, 2012.

———. U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Passenger Vehicle Sector Update. USITC Publication 4220. 

Washington, DC: USITC, September 2011.
Biblio-15

U.S. Meat Export Federation. “USMEF Announces Expanded South Korea Initiative.” Press release, May 

4, 2011. http://www.usmef.org/news-statistics/press-releases/usmef-announces-expanded-southkorea-initiative/.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Fiscal Year 2013––Budget of the U.S. Government––

Appendix. Washington, D.C.: OMB, February 14, 2012.

U.S. Senate. Committee on Finance. “Baucus Leads Senate Passage of Colombia, Panama, South Korean 

FTAs.” Press release, October 11, 

2011. http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=b4fb689a-c99e-4093-b310-

9778b531ffdd.

———. “Baucus Secures Administration’s Commitment to Expand U.S. Beef Access in Korea.” Press 

release, May 4, 2011. http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “21st U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Fact 

Sheet.” Fact sheet, December 15, 2010. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/factsheets/2010/21st-us-china-joint-commission-commerce-and-trade.

———. “22nd U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.” Fact sheet, November 21, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/2011-us-china-jointcommission-commerce-and-trade-ou.

———. 2008 Comprehensive Report on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa 

and Implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, The Eighth of Eight Annual

Reports, May 2008. Washington, D.C.: USTR, May 2008.

———. 2009 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, April 30, 2009.

———. 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USTR, February 2009.

———. 2010 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, April 30, 2010.

———. 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 

March 2011.

———. 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Washington, DC: USTR, March 2011.

———. 2011 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance. Washington, DC: USTR, December 

2011.

———. 2011 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, April 2011.

———. 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USTR, March 2011.

———. 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 

March 2012.
Biblio-16

———. 2012 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Report. Washington, DC: USTR, March 2012.

———. 2012 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, April 2012.

———. 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USTR, March 2012.

———. “Agriculture in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 27, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/agriculture-us-panamatrade-promotion-agreement.

———. “Ambassador Kirk and Indian Minister Sharma Work to Strengthen Bilateral Trade Relations.”

USTR Blog, September 22, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/blog/2011/september/ambassador-kirk-and-indian-minister-sharma-work-stregthen.

———. “Ambassador Kirk Announces U.S. Win in WTO Dispute Challenging Philippine Excise Taxes 

on Distilled Spirits.” Press release, December 21, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2011/december/ambassador-kirk-announces-us-win-wto-dispute-chal.

———. “Ambassador Kirk Comments on Mexico’s Elimination of Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Exports.”

Press release, October 21, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/october/ambassador-kirk-comments-mexicos-elimination-retal.

———. “Ambassador Ron Kirk Announces U.S. Win in WTO Dispute Challenging Philippine Excise 

Taxes on Distilled Spirits.” Press release, August 15, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2011/august/ambassador-ron-kirk-announces-us-win-wto-dispute-ch.

———. “APEC Launches 2011 Efforts toward Creating a Seamless Regional Economy in the AsiaPacific Region.” Press release, March 13, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/march/apec-launches-2011-efforts-toward-creating-seamless.

———. “China Ends Wind Power Equipment Subsidies Challenged by the United States in WTO 

Dispute.” Press release, June 7, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/june/china-ends-wind-power-equipment-subsidies-challenged.

———. “Countries & Regions: South & Central Asia; India,” n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/countriesregions/south-central-asia (accessed March 13, 2012).

———. “Environment in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 27, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/environment-us-panamatrade-promotion-agreement.

———. “Financial Services in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 27, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/financial-services-uspanama-trade-promotion-agreement.

———. “Government Procurement in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 

27, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/governmentprocurement-us-panama-trade-promotion-agreemen.
Biblio-17

———. “Intellectual Property Rights in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 

27, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/intellectual-propertyrights-us-panama-trade-promotion-ag.

———. “Jobs on the Way: U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement Enters into Force.” Press release, March 15, 

2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/march/us-korea-tradeagreement-enters-force-march-15-2012.

———. “Joint Statement from the January 10, 2011 meeting of the NAFTA Free Trade Commission 

(FTC), in Mexico City, Mexico.” Press release, January 10, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/press-releases/2011/january/joint-statement-january-10-2011-meeting-nafta-free.

———. “Joint Statement from Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministers Meeting on Margins of APEC in Big

Sky, Montana.” Press release, May 19, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/may/joint-statement-trans-pacific-partnership-ministers-me.

———. “Key Facts of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” n.d. In “U.S.-Panama Trade 

Agreement,” n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/uspanamatpa (accessed various dates).

———. “Kirk Comments on Signing of Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute.” Press release, 

June 25, 2010. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2010/june/kirkcomments-signing-framework-regarding-wto-cotton.

———. “Kirk Comments on U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.” Press release, June 26, 

2010. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2010/june/kirk-comments-uskorea-free-trade-agreement.

———. “Legal Texts reflecting December 3, 2010 Agreement,” n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/legal-texts-reflecting-december-3-2010-agreement.

———. “New U.S.-Mexico Telecommunications Agreement Will Ease Burdens on U.S. Manufacturers.”

Press release, May 26, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/may/new-us-mexico-telecommunications-agreement-will-ease-b.

———. Ninth Report to Congress on the Operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.

Washington, DC: USTR, December 31, 2011.

———. “Outlines of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.” Fact sheet, November 12, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-transpacific-partnership-agreement.

———. “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” February 28, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2595.

———. “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” December 20, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3215.
Biblio-18

———. “Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,” n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-tradeagreements/panama-tpa (accessed March 14, 2012).

———. “Readout of Ambassador Kirk’s bilateral meeting with Indian Commerce and Industry Minister 

Anand Sharma.” Press release, June 22, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/june/readout-ambassador-kirks-bilateral-meeting-indian-com.

———. “Record of Discussion: U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative,” January 27, 

2012. http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/japan-korea-apec/japan.

———. “Round 10: Kuala Lumpur; Additional Strides Made at Tenth Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 

Round,” December 9, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/round-10-kuala-lumpur.

———. “Round 5: Santiago; Continued Progress at Fifth Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Round,”

February 18, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacificpartnership/round-5-santiago.

———. “Round 6: Singapore; Strong Sixth Round Progress Propels TPP Negotiations Forward,” April 1, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacificpartnership/round-6-singapore.

———. “Round 7: Ho Chi Minh City; Steady Progress at the Seventh Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 

Round,” June 24, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/transpacific-partnership/round-7-ho-chi-minh-city.

———. “Round 8: Chicago; Final Readout of Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations in Chicago, IL,”

September 15, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacificpartnership/tpp-negotiation-updates/round-8-chi.

———. “Round 9: Lima; TPP Negotiators Conclude Strong Ninth Round of Negotiations,” October 28, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tppnegotiation-updates/round-9-lim.

———. “Services in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 27, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/services-us-panama-tradepromotion-agreement.

———. “Statement by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Response to WTO Panel Decision 

on Country of Origin Labeling.” Press release, November 18, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/press-releases/2011/november/statement-office-us-trade-representative-response.

———. “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk in Response to EU Compliance Offer in 

WTO Airbus Ruling.” Press release, December 1, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2011/november/statement-us-trade-representative-ron-kirk-respon.
Biblio-19

———. “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk on Announcements from Mexico and Canada 

Regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Press release, November 13, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/november/statement-ustrade-representative-ron-kirk-announ.

———. “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk on Japan’s Announcement Regarding TransPacific Partnership.” Press release, November 11, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2011/november/statement-us-trade-representative-ron-kirk-japans.

———. “Statement from USTR Schwab on the Issuing of the Korea Beef Protocol.” Press release, June 

24, 2008. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/archives/2008/june/statementustr-schwab-issuing-korea-beef-pro.

———. “Summary of the U.S.-Korea FTA.” Fact sheet, April 24, 2009. http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/fact-sheets/2009/april/summary-us-korea-fta.

———. “Tax Transparency in Panama,” n.d. In “Panama Trade Promotion Agreement: Fact Sheet: Tax 

Transparency and the U.S.-Panama Trade Agreement,” n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/free-trade-agreements/panama-tpa (accessed March 14, 2012).

———. “Telecommunications in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 27, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/telecommunications-us-

%E2%80%93-panama-trade-promotion-agreement.

———. “The United States Challenges EU Non-Compliance in WTO Airbus Ruling.” Press release, 

December 9, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/december/united-states-challenges-eu-non-compliance-wto-ai.

———. “Thursday, October 27 at the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations in Lima, Peru.” Press 

release, October 27, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/october/thursday-october-27-trans-pacific-partnership-nego.

———. “To Protect American Jobs, United States Announces Next Step in Dispute against China.” Press 

release, December 8, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/december/protect-american-jobs-united-states-announces-nex.

———. “Trade Agreements and Jobs.” Fact sheet, October 3, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/fact-sheets/2011/october/trade-agreements-and-jobs.

———. “Trade Topics: Intellectual Property; The Final Text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

(May 2011).” http://www.ustr.gov/acta.

———. “Trans-Pacific Leaders Statement.” Press release, November 12, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/november/trans-pacificpartnership-leaders-statement.
Biblio-20

———. “Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Ministers’ Report to Leaders.” Press release, November 

12, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/november/trans-pacificpartnership-tpp-trade-ministers%E2%80%99-re.

———. “Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Ministers’ Report to Leaders: Endorsed by TPP Leaders, 

November 12, 2011.” Press release, November 12, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2011/november/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-trade-ministers%E2%80%99-

re.

———. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations Take Place in Kuala Lumpur.” USTR Blog, December 7, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog/2011/december/trans-pacific-partnershipnegotiations-take-place-kuala-lum.

———. “Tuesday, September 13 at the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations in Chicago, IL.” Press 

release, September 13, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/september/tuesday-september-13-trans-pacific-partnership-n.

———. “U.S. Industrial Goods and Manufacturing in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.”

Fact sheet, May 27, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/usindustrial-goods-and-manufacturing-us-panama-trade-pro.

———. “U.S. Textiles and Apparel in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 

27, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/us-textiles-andapparel-us-panama-trade-promotion-agreeme.

———. “U.S. Textiles and Apparel in the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.” Fact sheet, May 

27, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/may/us-textiles-andapparel-us-panama-trade-promotion-agreeme.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Announces U.S. Victory in WTO Aircraft Dispute.” Press 

release, March 12, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/us-trade-representative-kirk-announces-us-victorywto-aircraft-dispute.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Enforces Rights of U.S. Farmers through New WTO Dispute 

against India’s Discriminatory Trade Practices.” Press release, March 6, 

2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/march/us-traderepresentative-kirk-enforces-rights-us-farm.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara Meet during 

APEC Forum Leaders Meeting.” Press release, November 13, 2010. http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/press-releases/2010/november/us-trade-representative-ron-kirk-japanese-foreign.

———. “U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute.” Press release, June 17, 

2010. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2010/june/us-brazil-agreeframework-regarding-wto-cotton-disput.
Biblio-21

———. “U.S., Japan Hold High-Level Consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Press release, 

February 7, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/february/usjapan-hold-high-level-consultation-trans-pacif.

———. “U.S.-Canada Agreement on Government Procurement,” n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/tradetopics/government-procurement/us-canada-agreement-government-procurement (accessed

February 3, 2012).

———. “U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and Action Plan.” USTR Blog, April 6, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog/2011/april/us-colombia-trade-agreementand-action-plan.

———. “U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum Facts.” Fact sheet, September 21, 

2010. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2010/us-india-trade-policy-forumfacts.

———. “United States and Canada Sign a Two-Year Extension of the 2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood 

Lumber Agreement.” Press release, January 23, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2012/january/united-states-and-canada-sign-two-year-extension-2.

———. “United States and India Sign Framework for Cooperation on Trade and Investment.” Press 

release, March 17, 2010. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2010/march/united-states-and-india-sign-framework-cooperation-t.

———. “United States Challenges China’s Export Restraints on Rare Earths.” Press release, March 13, 

2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/march/united-stateschallenges-china%E2%80%99s-export-restraints-r.

———. “United States Files WTO Case against China to Protect American Jobs.” Press release, 

September 20, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/september/united-states-files-wto-case-against-china-prote.

———. “United States Prevails in WTO Dispute about Chinese Tire Imports.” Press release, September 

5, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/september/united-statesprevails-wto-dispute-about-chinese.

———. “United States Prevails in WTO Dispute over Large Civil Aircraft.” Press release, March 31, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/march/united-statesprevails-wto-dispute-over-large-civil.

———. “United States Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Consultations on China’s Subsidies for Wind 

Power Equipment Manufacturers.” Press release, December 22, 2010. http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/press-releases/2010/december/united-states-requests-wto-dispute-settlement-con.

———. “United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk Signs Agreement on Trade and Economic 

Cooperation to Promote American Exports to Brazil.” Press release, March 19, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/march/united-states-traderepresentative-ron-kirk-signs-ag.
Biblio-22

———. “United States, Japan Conclude Two-Day U.S.-Japan Trade Forum.” Press release, January 14, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/january/united-states-japanconclude-two-day-us-japan-trad.

———. “United States, Korea Set Date for Entry into Force of U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement.” Press 

release, February 21, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2012/february/united-states-korea-set-date-entry-force-us-korea.

———. “Update on Implementation of Free Trade Agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.”

Press release, December 5, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/december/update-implementation-free-trade-agreements-korea.

———. “Update on Pending Trade Issue.” Press release, May 4, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/press-releases/2011/may/update-pending-trade-issues.

———. “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Review of Notorious Markets.” Press release, 

February 28, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/february/ustrannounces-results-special-301-review-notorio.

———. “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Review of Notorious Markets.” Press release,

December 20, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/december/ustr-announces-results-special-301-review-notorio.

———. “USTR Confirms Korea’s Announcement on U.S. Beef.” Press release, June 21, 

2008. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/pdfs/press_release/2008/asset_upload_file71

1_14948.pdf.

———. “USTR Hosts First Meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Commission on Economic and Trade Relations,”

March 14, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog/2012/march/ustr-hosts-firstmeeting-us-brzail-commission-economic-and-tra.

———. “USTR Hosts U.S-EU Conference for Small Businesses.” USTR Blog, November 21, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog/2011/november.

———. “USTR Kirk on Reduction of Tariffs on U.S. Exports, Resolution of U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border 

Trucking Dispute.” Press release, July 8, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/july/statement-ambassador-ron-kirk-reduction-tariffs-us-ex.

———. “USTR Press Office Week Ahead March 12–16: Ambassador Sapiro Co-chairs the First Meeting 

under the U.S.-Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation (ATEC).” Press release, 

March 9, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/march/ustr-pressoffice-week-ahead-march-12-16.

———. “USTR Releases Annual Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights.” Press release, May 

2, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/may/ustr-releases-annualspecial-301-report-intellectual-p.
Biblio-23

———. “USTR Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Panels in Two Cases against China.” Press release, 

February 11, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/february/ustrrequests-wto-dispute-settlement-panels-two-c.

———. “USTR Statement Regarding China’s Decision to Request WTO Consultations on Shrimp 

Antidumping Measures.” Press release, February 28, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2011/february/ustr-statement-regarding-chinas-decision-request.

———. “USTR Statement Regarding WTO Appellate Body Report in Countervailing Duty Dispute with 

China.” Press release, March 11, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/march/ustr-statement-regarding-wto-appellate-body-report-c.

———. U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook.

Washington, DC: USTR, May 2011.

———. “WTO Appellate Body Confirms U.S. Win in Airbus Case: $18 Billion in Illegal European 

Subsidies to Airbus.” Press release, May 18, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2011/may/wto-appellate-body-confirms-us-win-airbus-case-18-bill.

———. “WTO Panel Finds against China’s Export Restraints on Raw Materials.” Press release, July 5, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/july/wto-panel-findsagainst-chinas-export-restraints-raw.

United States-European Commission High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum (HLRCF). “Building 

Bridges between the U.S. and EU Standards Systems,” November 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-eu-standards-bridges.pdf.

———. “Common Understanding on Regulatory Principles and Best Practices,” June 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/common-understanding-onregulatory-principles-and-best-practices.pdf.

Vanuatu Daily Post. “Australia, WTO in Vanuatu Accession Gaffe,” December 22, 

2011. http://www.dailypost.vu/content/australia-wto-vanuatu-accession-gaffe.

White House. Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation between the Government of the United 

States of America and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil, March 18, 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Brazil_ATEC.pdf

———. “Terms of Reference for the High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council,” March 3, 2011. In 

United States and Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council Work Plan, February 28, 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/highlevel_regulatory_cooperation_council-terms_of_reference_final.pdf.

White House. Office of Management and Budget. American Jobs Act of 2011. Reports to Congress,

September 12,

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobsact.pdf.
Biblio-24

———. “Supporting U.S. Economic Growth through North American Regulatory Cooperation.” OMB 

Blog post by Cass Sunstein, February 28, 

2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/28/supporting-us-economic-growth-throughnorth-american-regulatory-cooperation.

White House. Office of the Press Secretary. “Corrected Fact Sheet: U.S.-India Trade and Economic 

Cooperation,” November 8, 2010. In “The U.S.-India Partnership: The Fact Sheets.” Statements 

and Releases, November 8, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/08/usindia-partnership-fact-sheets.

———. “Fact Sheet: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation.” Statements and Releases, March 3, 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/03/fact-sheet-enhancing-us-mexicocooperation.

———. “Fact Sheet: Increasing U.S. Auto Exports and Growing U.S. Auto Jobs through the U.S.-Korea 

Trade Agreement.” In “Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement.”

Statements and Releases, December 3, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2010/12/03/statement-president-announcing-us-korea-trade-agreement.

———. “Press Conference with President Obama and President Hu of the People’s Republic of China.”

Statements and Releases, January 19, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/01/19/press-conference-president-obama-and-president-hu-peoples-republic-china.

———. “Readout by the Press Secretary on the President’s Meeting with Prime Minister Noda of Japan.”

Statements and Releases, November 12, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/11/12/readout-press-secretary-presidents-meeting-prime-minister-noda-japan.

———. “Remarks by President Obama and President Lee Myung-Bak of the Republic of Korea after

Bilateral Meeting.” Speeches and Remarks, June 26, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/remarks-president-obama-and-president-lee-myung-bak-republic-korea-after-bilateral-.

———. “Remarks by the President at the Announcement of a U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.”

Speeches and Remarks, December 4, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2010/12/04/remarks-president-announcement-a-us-korea-free-trade-agreement.

———. “Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement.” Statements and

Releases, December 3, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/03/statementpresident-announcing-us-korea-trade-agreement.

———. “Strengthening the U.S.-Brazil Economic Relationship,” March 19, 2011. In “The United States 

and Brazil: The Fact Sheets.” Statements and Releases, March 19,

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/19/united-states-and-brazil-factsheets.

———. “Transatlantic Economic Council: Joint Statement.” Statements and Releases, December 17, 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/17/transatlantic-economic-counciljoint-statement.
Biblio-25

———. “Transatlantic Economic Council: Readout.” Statements and Releases, November 30, 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/30/transatlantic-economic-councilreadout.

———. “U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement: Expanding Markets for America’s Farmers and 

Ranchers.” In “Fact Sheets: U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement; Fact Sheet: Agriculture 

and the U.S.-Panama Trade Agreement.” Statements and Releases, April 19, 

2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/19/fact-sheets-us-panama-tradepromotion-agreement.

World Bank Institute. “Reviving Haiti’s Garment Industry through Foreign Investment and Capacity 

Development.” Last updated: August 30, 2011. http://wbi.worldbank.org/sske/resultstory/1281. http://wbi.worldbank.org/sske/case/reviving-haiti%E2%80%99s-garment-industrythrough-foreign-investment-and-capacity-development.

World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). “Resolution No. XXIV: Recognition of the Bovine 

Spongiform Encephalopathy Status of Member Countries,” May 22, 2007. In Resolutions 

Adopted during the 75th General Session, 20–25 May 2007. 75 GS/FR. Paris: OIE, May 2007,

141. http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D4111.PDF.

World Trade Organization (WTO) “Accession of Montenegro: Decision of 17 December 2011.”

WT/MIN(11)/28, WT/L/841, December 17, 2011.

———. “Accession of Samoa: Decision of 17 December 2011.” WT/MIN(11)/27, WT/L/840, December 

17, 2011.

———. “Accession of the Russian Federation: Decision of 16 December 2011.” WT/MIN(11)/24, 

WT/L/839, December 17, 2011.

———. “Accession of the Russian Federation: Invocation by the Russian Federation of Article XIII of 

the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization with respect to the United 

States.” WT/L/838, December 16, 2011.

———. “Accession of the Russian Federation: Invocation by the United States of Article XIII of the 

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization with respect to the Russian 

Federation.” WT/L/837, December 16, 2011.

———. “Accession of Vanuatu: Decision of 26 October 2011.” WT/L/823, November 3, 2011.

———. “Committee Debates Pros and Cons of Standard for Lean Meat Additive.” News release, June 

30–July 1, 2011. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/sps_30jun11_e.htm.

———. “Day 2: Russia Membership Accepted As Ministers Debate WTO’s Role.” News release, 

December 16, 2011. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/mn11a_16dec11_e.htm.

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS316; European Communities; Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil 

Aircraft.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat,

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).
Biblio-26

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS353; United States; Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft; 

Second Complaint.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat,

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds353_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS379; United States; Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Products from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds379_e.htm (accessed February 16, 

2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS381; United States; Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing 

and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS382; United States; Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other 

Measures Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil.” Online summary prepared by 

the WTO Secretariat, n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds382_e.htm

(accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS384; United States; Certain County of Origin Labeling (COOL) 

Requirements.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS386; United States; Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements.”

Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds386_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS394; China; Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw 

Materials.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds394_e.htm (accessed January 30, 

2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS399; United States; Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger 

Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds399_e.htm (accessed October 21, 

2011).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS402; United States; Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures 

Involving Products from Korea.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds402_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS403; Philippines; Taxes on Distilled Spirits.” Online summary prepared 

by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds403_e.htm

(accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS404; United States; Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from 

Viet Nam.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds404_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).
Biblio-27

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS406; United States; Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of 

Clove Cigarettes.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds406_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS413; China; Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services.”

Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds413_e.htm (accessed January 24, 

2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS414; China; Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain 

Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States.” Online summary prepared by the 

WTO Secretariat, n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds414_e.htm

(accessed October 21, 2011).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS420; United States; Anti-Dumping Measures on Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds420_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS422; United States; Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond 

Sawblades from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds422_e.htm (accessed January 24, 

2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS424; United States; Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds424_e.htm (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS427; China; Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on

Broiler Products from the United State.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds427_e.htm (accessed February 16, 

2012).

———. “Informal Note on the Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia: Communication 

from the Delegations of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.” JOB/ACC/1, April 12, 

2010.

———. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Friday, 29 April 2011; Chairman’s

Remarks.” JOB/TNC/10, April 29, 2011.

———. “Eighth Ministerial Conference: Chairman’s Concluding Statement.” Ministerial Conference, 

Eighth Session, Geneva, 15–17 December 2011. WT/MIN(11)/11, December 17, 2011.

———. “Ministerial Conferences: Eighth WTO Ministerial Conference,”

n.d. http://wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min11_e/min11_e.htm (accessed March 6, 2012).
Biblio-28

———. “Ministerial Conferences: Official Documents of the Geneva Ministerial,”

n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min11_e/official_doc_e.htm (accessed March 

6, 2012).

———. “Protocol on the Accession of Vanuatu to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World 

Trade Organization: Done at Geneva on 26 October 2011; Notification of Acceptance.”

WT/LET/836, WLI/101, November 16, 2011.

———. “Report (2011) of the Committee on Government Procurement.” GPA/110, November 16, 2011.

———. “Report (2011) of the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft.” WT/L/827, November 16, 2011.

———. “Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.” Final Act 

Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Geneva: WTO, 

1995.

———. “United States: Subsidies on Upland Cotton; Joint Communication from Brazil and the United 

States.” WT/DS267/45, August 31, 2010.

———. “WTO: 2011 News Items; 30 November 2011; General Council; Lamy Sees Support for 

Advancing Negotiations in More Promising Areas of the Round.” News release, November 30, 

2011. http://wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/gc_rpt_30nov11_e.htm#annex

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information 

Technology Products. “Minutes of the Meeting of 24 May 2011.” G/IT/M/53, September 12, 

2011.

———. “Minutes of the Meeting of 24 October 2011.” G/IT/M/54, December 19, 2011.

———. “Status of Implementation: Note by the Secretariat; Revision.” G/IT/1/Rev.45, October 10, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Agriculture. Special Session. “Negotiating Group on 

Agriculture: Report by the Chairman, H.E. Mr. David Walker, to the Trade Negotiations 

Committee, 21 April 2011.” TN/AG/26, April 21, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Agriculture. Special Session. Sub-Committee on 

Cotton. “WTO Negotiations on Agriculture: Communication from the Co-Sponsors of the 

Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton.” TN/AG/GEN/32, TN/AG/SCC/GEN/11, November 8, 

2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Government Procurement. “Ministerial-Level Meeting 

of the Committee on Government Procurement (15 December 2011): Decision on the Outcomes 

of the Negotiations under Article XXIV:7 of the Agreement on Government Procurement.”

GPA/112, December 16, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade and Development (OECD). Special Session. 

“Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development: Report by the Chairman, 
Biblio-29

Ambassador Shahid Bashir (Pakistan), to the Trade Negotiations Committee.” TN/CTD/26, April 

21, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade and Environment. Special Session. “Committee

on Trade and Environment in Special Session: Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manuel A. 

J. Teehankee, to the Trade Negotiations Committee.” TN/TE/20, April 21, 2011.

———. “Compilation of Submissions under Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration Pursuant to the 

CTESS Work Programme: Revision.” JOB/TE/3/Rev.1, January 5, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft. “Minutes of the Meeting Held 

on 11 November 2011.” TCA/M/27, November 14, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Council for Trade in Services. Special Session. “Negotiations on 

Trade in Services: Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Fernando de Mateo, to the Trade 

Negotiations Committee.” TN/S/36, April 21, 2011.

———. “Preferential Treatment to Services and Service Suppliers of Least-Developed Countries: Report 

by the Chairman, Ambassador Fernando de Mateo.” TN/S/37, November 29, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 

Special Session. “Multilateral System of Notification and Registration of Geographical 

Indications for Wines and Spirits: Draft Composite Text; Revision.” JOB/IP/3/Rev.1, April 20, 

2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Dispute Settlement Body. Special Session. “Special Session of the 

Dispute Settlement Body: Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Ronald Saborío Soto, to the 

Trade Negotiations Committee.” TN/DS/25, April 21, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council. “Annual Report (2011).” WT/GC/142, December 9, 

2011.

———. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 26 October 2011.” WT/GC/M/133, 

December 7, 2011.

———. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 27 July 2011.” WT/GC/M/132, 

September 21, 2011.

———. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 May 2011.” WT/GC/M/131, 

June 30, 2011.

———. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 30 November 2011.”

WT/GC/M/134, March 21, 2012.

———. “Protocol of Accession of Vanuatu—Request for Re-opening of the Protocol of Accession of 

Vanuatu to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization—

Communication from Vanuatu.” WT/GC/146, July 4, 2012.
Biblio-30

———. “Tuesday, 22 February 2011: Agenda Item 1; Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations 

Committee.” JOB/GC/8, February 22, 2011.

———. “Wednesday, 30 November 2011: Agenda Item 2; Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee.” Annex: “State of Play in Negotiating Groups.” JOB/GC/16, November 

30, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council. Trade Negotiations Committee. “Issues Related to 

the Extension of the Protection of Geographical Indications Provided for in Article 23 of the 

TRIPS Agreement to Products Other than Wines and Spirits and Those Related to the 

Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity: Report 

by the Director-General.” WT/GC/W/633, TN/C/W/61, April 21, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Negotiating Group on Market Access. “Textual Report by the 

Chairman, Ambassador Luzius Wasescha, on the State of Play of the NAMA Negotiations: 

Addendum.” TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3/Add.1, April 21, 2011. Annex A: “Ministerial Decision on 

Procedures for the Facilitation of Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers”; Annex B: “Understanding on 

the Interpretation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with respect to the Labelling 

of Textiles, Clothing, Footwear, and Travel Goods”; Annex C: “Transparency.”

World Trade Organization (WTO). Negotiating Group on Rules. “Communication from the Chairman.”

TN/RL/W/254, April 21, 2011.

———. “Negotiations on Regional Trade Agreements: Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade 

Agreements; Report by Ambassador Dennis Francis, Chairman, Negotiating Group on Rules.”

TN/RL/W/252, April 21, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation. “Draft Consolidated 

Negotiating Text: Revision.” TN/TF/W/165/Rev.11, October 7, 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO). The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade 

Negotiations: The Legal Texts. Geneva: WTO, 1995.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Trade Negotiations Committee. “Report by the Director-General on 

His Consultations on NAMA Sectoral Negotiations.” TN/C/14, April 21, 2011.

WorldTrade Interactive. “Earned Import Program for Haitian Apparel Still Underutilized, GAO Reports.”

WorldTrade/INTERACTIVE database, prepared by Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.,

December 2, 

2011. http://www.strtrade.com/wti/wti.asp?pub=0&story=38641&date=12%2F2%2F2011&comp

any=.
APPENDIX TABLES

A-3 

TABLE A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 69,132 79,626 98,110 23.21 Beverages and tobacco 4,710 5,023 5,604 11.62 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 61,050 79,896 90,948 13.83 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 54,358 79,801 127,919 60.34 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 3,192 4,308 4,527 5.15 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 153,242 180,906 197,345 9.16 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 80,401 99,723 114,052 14.47 Machinery and transport equipment 367,271 424,353 470,983 11.08 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 98,789 108,960 115,230 5.89 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 44,601 59,534 74,460 25.1

 Total 936,745 1,122,131 1,299,176 15.8

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 61,880 70,252 82,418 17.31 Beverages and tobacco 15,310 16,155 17,664 9.32 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 22,350 30,268 38,062 25.83 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 257,315 336,134 429,384 27.74 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 3,746 4,349 6,634 52.55 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 156,279 181,307 208,692 15.16 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 151,450 193,941 230,320 18.87 Machinery and transport equipment 567,502 710,793 789,721 11.18 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 246,933 285,669 306,220 7.29 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 66,397 69,742 77,838 11.6

 Total 1,549,163 1,898,610 2,186,951 15.2

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-4 

TABLE A.2 Leading U.S. exports to the world by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 69,992 66,834 74,961 12.22710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products, not light 29,182 39,671 62,984 58.8 

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 7,250 13,617 26,962 98.0 

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding 

powder 11,918 14,698 24,134 64.2 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating 

piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 11,778 17,246 22,318 29.4 

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail 

sale, n.e.s.o.i. 17,609 17,780 18,386 3.4 

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 16,475 18,584 17,560 –5.5 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 5,784 9,373 15,587 66.3 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating 

piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 8,983 13,579 15,537 14.4 

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 8,859 9,919 13,756 38.7 1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 5,133 6,488 10,868 67.5 8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 9,514 11,375 10,667 –6.2 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 5,939 7,378 10,215 38.4 7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 4,973 6,162 9,217 49.6 5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 3,384 5,746 8,424 46.6 7112.91 Gold waste and scrap, including metal clad with gold but excluding sweepings 

containing other precious metals 1,754 2,183 8,241 277.6 

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 6,986 7,523 8,044 6.9 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 5,088 7,652 7,622 –0.4 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, 

images or other data, including switching/routing apparatus 5,505 6,204 7,206 16.2 

8704.31 Motor vehicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston 

engine, gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 5,234 7,245 7,122 –1.7 

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 7,310 6,637 6,507 –2.0 8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 4,411 6,180 5,566 –9.9 2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 2,790 3,848 5,436 41.2 8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or 

electronic integrated circuits 2,772 7,144 5,331 –25.4 

8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 2,229 2,953 5,045 70.9 

 Total of items shown 260,850 316,020 407,696 29.0 

All other 675,894 806,111 891,480 10.6 

 Total of all commodities 936,745 1,122,131 1,299,176 15.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-5 

TABLE A.3 Leading U.S. imports from the world by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change

2010–11

Millions of $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 150,809 196,862 246,894 25.42710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 39,108 52,661 74,995 42.4

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 41,765 58,018 64,355 10.9

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 37,068 54,837 56,502 3.0

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 32,584 36,922 42,213 14.38471.30 Portable digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at least a CPU, 

keyboard and display 26,925 34,374 42,091 22.4

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 36,791 39,382 37,802 –4.0

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 21,521 27,878 36,829 32.1

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 15,266 22,399 23,758 6.1

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 12,445 18,055 21,691 20.18528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 18,618 19,204 16,621 –13.42713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 7,860 11,231 16,543 47.3

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 18,117 22,210 15,553 –30.08471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 9,495 14,057 15,023 6.98542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 6,235 9,189 14,378 56.57108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 7,928 11,647 14,330 23.02711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 12,404 13,713 13,290 –3.18443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 10,403 10,912 11,527 5.68708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 6,684 9,763 11,460 17.49503.00 Tricycles, scooters, similar wheeled toys; dolls, doll's carriages, and other toys; puzzles; reduced

scale models 9,318 11,216 10,877 –3.0

8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units 9,154 10,454 9,969 –4.6

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 7,676 8,319 9,707 16.72711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, other than natural gas, in a gaseous state 5,522 7,219 9,530 32.08411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 8,074 8,089 9,148 13.16110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton 8,042 8,753 9,139 4.4

Total of items shown 559,813 717,363 834,226 16.3

All other 989,351 1,181,248 1,352,725 14.5

 Total of all commodities 1,549,163 1,898,610 2,186,951 15.2

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-6 

TABLE A.4 U.S. private services trade with the world, by category, 2009–11 

Service industry 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

Exports 

 Business, professional, and technical services 117,793 126,296 137,862 9.2 

 Royalties and license fees 97,183 105,583 120,619 14.2 

 Travel 94,191 103,505 116,279 12.3 

 Financial services 62,444 66,387 72,988 9.9 

 Passenger fares 26,103 30,931 36,717 18.7 

 Education 19,948 21,291 22,823 7.2 

 Port services 18,067 20,168 21,309 5.7 

 Freight 17,466 19,768 21,145 7.0 

 Insurance services 14,427 14,605 15,350 5.1 

 Telecommunications 10,053 11,095 12,744 14.9 

 Other 10,192 10,645 10,983 3.2 

 Total 487,867 530,274 588,819 11.0 

Imports 

 Business, professional, and technical services 83,559 90,585 106,766 17.9 

 Travel 74,118 75,507 79,120 4.8 

 Insurance services 63,614 61,767 57,561 –6.8 

 Freight 29,795 37,915 40,340 6.4 

 Royalties and license fees 29,849 33,450 36,581 9.4 

 Passenger fares 25,137 27,279 31,104 14.0 

 Financial services 13,597 13,803 15,070 9.2 

 Port services 12,797 13,288 14,144 6.4 

 Telecommunications 7,493 8,006 7,822 –2.3 

 Education 5,357 5,677 5,970 5.2 

 Other 704 759 796 4.9 

 Total 346,020 368,036 395,274 7.4 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data. 

Note: Data for 2011 are preliminary. 
A-7 

TABLE A.5 Antidumping cases active in 2011, by USITC investigation number

USITCinvestigation number Product 

Countyof origin 

Date of institution 

USITC prelim 

ITAa

prelim 

ITA final 

USITC final 

Date of final actionb

Affirmative = A; Negative = N 

731-TA-1088 Polyvinyl alcohol Taiwan 9/7/2004 

Ac A

A

A 3/7/2011 

731-TA-1176 Drill pipe China 12/31/2009 

A

A

A

A 2/17/2011 

731-TA-1177 

Aluminum extrusions China 3/31/2010 

A

A

A

A 5/13/2011 

731-TA-1179 Multilayered wood flooring China 10/21/2010 

A

A

A

A 11/21/2011 

731-TA-1180 Bottom-mount combination refrigerator-freezers Korea 3/30/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1181 Bottom-mount combination refrigerator-freezers Mexico 3/30/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1182 Steel wheels China 3/31/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1183 Galvanized steel wire China 3/31/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1184 Galvanized steel wire Mexico 3/31/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1185 Steel nails UAE 3/31/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1186 Stilbenic optical brightening agents China 3/31/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1187 Stilbenic optical brightening agents Taiwan 3/31/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1188 High pressure steel cylinders China 5/11/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1189 Large power transformers China 7/14/2011 

A

A

A (d) (d) 

731-TA-1190 Solar panels China 10/19/2011 

A

A (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1191 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe India 10/26/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1192 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Oman 10/26/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1193 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe UAE 10/26/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1194 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Vietnam 10/26/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1195 Wind towers China 12/29/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1196 Wind towers Vietnam 12/29/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1197 Steel wire garment hangers Taiwan 12/29/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1198 Steel wire garment hangers Vietnam 12/29/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1199 Large residential washers Korea 12/30/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

731-TA-1200 Large residential washers Mexico 12/30/2011 

A (d) (d) (d) (d) 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

a“ITA” is the International Trade Administration of the USDOC. bFor cases in which the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. For cases in which the final action was 

taken by USITC, the date of the USITC notification of USDOC is shown. cOn October 21, 2004, the USITC made a negative preliminary injury determination. Following judicial proceedings that concluded on March 30, 2010, the USITC 

published notice of its preliminary affirmative injury determination on remand. dPending as of December 31, 2011. 
A-8 

TABLE A.6 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Argentina Lemon juice (suspended) Sept. 10, 2007 

 Honey Dec. 10, 2001 

 

Australia Electrolytic manganese dioxide Oct. 7, 2008 

 

Belarus Steel concrete reinforcing bar Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Belgium Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

 

Brazil Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip Nov. 10, 2008 

 Certain orange juice Mar. 9, 2006 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Stainless steel bar Feb. 21, 1995 

 Silicomanganese Dec. 22, 1994 

 Circular welded nonalloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Dec. 17, 1986 

 Iron construction castings May 9, 1986 

 

Canada Citric acid and certain citric salts May 29, 2009 

 Iron construction castings Mar. 5, 1986 

 

Chile Preserved mushrooms Dec. 2, 1998 

 

China Multilayered wood flooring Nov. 21, 2011 

Aluminum extrusions May 13, 2011 

 Drill pipe and drill collars Feb. 23, 2011 

 Coated paper Nov. 17 2010 

 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe Nov. 10, 2010 

 Magnesia carbon bricks Sept. 20, 2010 

 Narrow woven ribbons Sept. 1, 2010 

 Woven electric blankets Aug. 18, 2010 

 Steel grating July 23, 2010 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand June 29, 2010 

 Oil country tubular goods May 21, 2010 

 Potassium phosphate salts July 22, 2010 

 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Nov. 22, 2010 

 Kitchen appliance shelving and racks Sept. 14, 2009 

 Tow-behind lawn groomer Aug. 3, 2009 

 Citric acid and certain citric salts May 29, 2009 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel line pipe May 13, 2009 

 Frontseating service valves April 28, 2009 

 HEDP April 28, 2009 

 Steel threaded rod April 14, 2009 

 Circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe Mar. 17, 2009 

 Small-diameter graphite electrodes Feb. 26, 2009 

 Uncovered innerspring units Feb. 19, 2009 

 Lightweight thermal paper Nov. 24, 2008 

 Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip Nov. 10, 2008 

 Electrolytic manganese dioxide Oct. 7, 2008 

 Steel wire garment hangers Oct. 6, 2008 

 Raw flexible magnets Sept. 17, 2008 
A-9 

TABLE A.6 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

China–Continued Off-the-road tires Sept. 4, 2008 

 Sodium nitrite Aug. 27, 2008 

 Laminated woven sacks Aug. 7, 2008 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Steel nails Aug. 1, 2008 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe July 22, 2008 

 Sodium hexametaphosphate Mar. 19, 2008 

 Certain polyester staple fiber June 1, 2007 

 Certain activated carbon April 27, 2007 

 Certain lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

Artist's canvas June 1, 2006 

 Chlorinated isocyanurates June 24, 2005 

 Magnesium April 15, 2005 

 Tissue paper Mar. 30, 2005 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Crepe paper Jan. 25, 2005 

 Wooden bedroom furniture Jan. 4, 2005 

 Carbazole violet pigment 23 Dec. 29, 2004 

 Hand trucks Dec. 2, 2004 

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Aug. 9, 2004 

 Ironing tables Aug. 6, 2004 

 Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol Aug. 6, 2004 

 Malleable iron pipe fittings Dec. 12, 2003 

 Refined brown aluminum oxide Nov. 19, 2003 

 Barium carbonate Oct. 1, 2003 

 Polyvinyl alcohol Oct. 1, 2003 

 Saccharin July 9, 2003 

 Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings Apr. 7, 2003 

 Ferrovanadium Jan. 28, 2003 

 Folding metal tables and chairs June 27, 2002 

 Folding gift boxes Jan. 8, 2002 

 Honey Dec. 10, 2001 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

 Pure magnesium (granular) Nov. 19, 2001 

 Foundry coke Sept. 17, 2001 

 Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 Preserved mushrooms Feb. 19, 1999 

 Carbon steel plate Oct. 24, 1997 

 Crawfish tail meat Sept. 15, 1997 

 Persulfates July 7, 1997 

 Furfuryl alcohol June 21, 1995 

 Pure magnesium (ingot) May 12, 1995 

 Glycine Mar. 29, 1995 

 Cased pencils Dec. 28, 1994 

 Silicomanganese Dec. 22, 1994 

 Paper clips Nov. 25, 1994 

 Fresh garlic Nov. 16, 1994 

 Helical spring lock washers Oct. 19, 1993 

 Sulfanilic acid Aug. 19, 1992 

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings July 6, 1992 

Silicon metal June 10, 1991 
A-10 

TABLE A.6 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

China–Continued Axes and adzes Feb. 19, 1991 

 Bars and wedges Feb. 19, 1991 

 Hammers and sledges Feb. 19, 1991 

 Picks and mattocks Feb. 19, 1991 

 Tapered roller bearings June 15, 1987 

 Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware Dec. 2, 1986 

 Petroleum wax candles Aug. 28, 1986 

 Iron construction castings May 9, 1986 

 Barium chloride Oct. 17, 1984 

 Chloropicrin Mar. 22, 1984 

 Potassium permanganate Jan. 31, 1984 

 Greige polyester cotton printcloth Sept. 16, 1983 

 

Finland Carboxymethylcellulose July 11, 2005 

 

France Low-enriched uranium Feb. 13, 2002 

 Brass sheet and strip Mar. 6, 1987 

 

Germany Lightweight thermal paper Nov. 24, 2008 

 Sodium nitrite Aug. 27, 2008 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999 

 Seamless pipe Aug. 3, 1995 

 Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 

 Brass sheet and strip Mar. 6, 1987 

 

India Commodity matchbooks Dec. 11, 2009 

 HEDP Apr. 28, 2009 

 Certain lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Carbazole violet pigment 23 Dec. 29, 2004 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002 

 Silicomanganese May 23, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Preserved mushrooms Feb. 19, 1999 

 Stainless steel bar Feb. 21, 1995 

 Stainless steel wire rod Dec. 1, 1993 

 Sulfanilic acid Mar. 2, 1993 

 Welded carbon steel pipe May 12, 1986 

Indonesia Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

 Certain lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

 Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Preserved mushrooms Feb. 19, 1999 

 

Iran Raw in-shell pistachios July 17, 1986 

 

Italy Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 
A-11 

TABLE A.6 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Italy–Continued Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Pasta July 24, 1996 

 Ball bearings May 15, 1989 

 Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Aug. 30, 1988 

 Brass sheet and strip Mar. 6, 1987 

 Pressure-sensitive plastic tape Oct. 21, 1977 

 

Japan Polyvinyl alcohol July 2, 2003 

 Welded large-diameter line pipe Dec. 6, 2001 

 Tin- and chromium-coated steel sheet Aug. 28, 2000 

 Large-diameter seamless pipe June 26, 2000 

 Small-diameter seamless pipe June 26, 2000 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products June 29, 1999 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Clad steel plate July 2, 1996 

 Stainless steel bar Feb. 21, 1995 

 Gray portland cement and clinker May 10, 1991 

 Brass sheet and strip Aug. 12, 1988 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 10, 1987 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Dec. 8, 1978 

 Polychloroprene rubber Dec. 6, 1973 

 

Kazakhstan Silicomanganese May 23, 2002 

 

Korea Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Polyvinyl alcohol Oct. 1, 2003 

 Polyester staple fiber May 25, 2000 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999 

 Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 

 Welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe Dec. 30, 1992 

 Circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 

Latvia Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Malaysia Polyethylene retail carrier bags Aug. 9, 2004 

 Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 2001 

 

Mexico Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Nov. 22, 2010 

 Magnesia carbon bricks Sept. 20, 2010 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Lemon juice (suspended) Sept. 10, 2007 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Fresh tomatoes (suspended) Nov. 1, 1996 

 Circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 

Moldova Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 
A-12 

TABLE A.6 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Moldova–Continued Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Netherlands Carboxymethylcellulose July 11, 2005 

 

Norway Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon Apr. 12, 1991 

 

Philippines Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 2001 

 

Poland Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Romania Small diameter seamless pipe Aug. 10, 2000 

 

Russia Silicon metal Mar. 26, 2003 

Ammonium nitrate (suspended) May 19, 2000 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (suspended) July 12, 1999 

 Carbon steel plate (suspended) Oct. 24, 1997 

 Ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium July 10, 1995 

 Uranium (suspended) Oct. 16, 1992 

 Solid urea July 14, 1987 

 

South Africa Uncovered innerspring units Dec. 11, 2008 

 Ferrovanadium Jan. 28, 2003 

 Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

Spain Chlorinated isocyanurates June 24, 2005 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Stainless steel bar Mar. 2, 1995 

 

Taiwan Polyvinyl alcohol Mar. 8, 2011 

 Narrow woven ribbons Sept. 1, 2010 

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

 Raw flexible magnets Sept. 17, 2008 

 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

Polyester staple fiber May 25, 2000 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999 

 Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Helical spring lockwashers June 28, 1993 

 Welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe Dec. 30, 1992 

 Circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe Mar. 27, 1989 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Dec. 17, 1986 

 Small-diameter carbon steel pipe May 7, 1984 

 

Thailand Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Aug. 9, 2004 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings July 6, 1992 

 Welded carbon steel pipe Mar. 11, 1986 

 

Trinidad and Tobago Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 

Turkey Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube May 30, 2008 
A-13 

TABLE A.6 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Turkey–Continued Pasta July 24, 1996 

 Welded carbon steel pipe May 15, 1986 

 

Ukraine Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

 Silicomanganese Sept. 17, 2001 

Ammonium nitrate Sept. 12, 2001 

 Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate (suspended) Oct. 24, 1997 

 Solid urea July 14, 1987 

 

United Arab Emirates Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip Nov. 10, 2008 

 

Venezuela Silicomanganese May 23, 2002 

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

 Uncovered innerspring units Dec. 11, 2008 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Frozen fish fillets Aug. 12, 2003 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 
A-14 

TABLE A.7 Countervailing duty cases active in 2011, by USITC investigation number USITC investigation number Product 

County of origin 

Date of institution 

USITC prelim 

ITAa

prelim 

ITA final 

USITC final 

Date of final actionb

 Affirmative = A; Negative = N 701-TA-474 Drill pipe China 12/31/09 

A

A

A

A 2/17/2011 

701-TA-475 

Aluminum extrusions China 03/31/10 

A

A

A

A 5/13/2011 

701-TA-476 Multilayered wood flooring China 10/21/10 

A

A

A

A 11/21/2011 

701-TA-477 Bottom-mount combination refrigerator-freezers Korea 3/30/11

A

A

A (

c) (c

)

701-TA-478 Steel wheels China 3/30/11 

A

A

A (c) (c) 

701-TA-479 Galvanized steel wire China 3/31/11 

A

A

A (c) (c) 

701-TA-480 High pressure steel cylinders China 3/31/11 

A

A

A (c) (c) 

701-TA-481 Solar panels China 3/31/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-482 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe India 10/26/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-483 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Oman 10/26/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-484 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe UAE 10/26/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-485 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Vietnam 10/26/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-486 Wind towers China 12/29/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-487 Steel garment hangers Vietnam 12/29/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-488 Large residential washers Korea 12/30/11 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

aInternational Trade Administration, USDOC. bFor cases in which the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. For cases in which the final action 

was taken by USITC, the date of the USITC notification of USDOC is shown. cPending as of December 31, 2011. 
A-15 

TABLE A.8 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2011

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Argentina Honey Dec. 10, 2001 

 

Belgium Stainless steel plate in coils May 11, 1999 

 

Brazil Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 22, 2002 

 Heavy iron construction castings May 15, 1986 

 

China Multilayered wood flooring Nov. 21, 2011 

Aluminum extrusions May 13, 2011 

 Drill pipe and drill collars Feb. 23, 2011 

 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Nov. 22, 2010 

 Coated paper Nov. 17, 2010 

 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe Nov. 10, 2010 

 Magnesia carbon bricks Sept. 21, 2010 

 Narrow woven ribbons Sept. 1, 2010 

 Steel grating July 23, 2010 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand July 7, 2010 

 Oil country tubular goods Jan. 20, 2010 

 Citric acid and certain citric salts May 29, 2009 

 Kitchen appliance shelving and racks Sept. 14, 2009 

 Tow-behind lawn groomers Aug. 3, 2009 

 Welded stainless steel pressure pipe Mar. 19, 2009 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel line pipe Jan. 23, 2009 

 Lightweight thermal paper Nov. 24, 2008 

 Raw flexible magnets Sept. 17, 2008 

 Off-the-road tires Sept. 4, 2008 

 Sodium nitrite Aug. 27, 2008 

 Laminated woven sacks Aug. 7, 2008 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe July 22, 2008 

 

India Commodity matchbooks Dec. 11, 2009 

 Lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

 Carbazole violet pigment 23 Dec. 29, 2004 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Feb. 4, 2004 

 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Sulfanilic acid Mar. 2, 1993 

 

Indonesia Coated paper Nov. 17, 2010 

 Certain lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 

Iran Roasted in-shell pistachios Oct. 7, 1986 

 Raw in-shell pistachios Mar. 11, 1986 

 

Italy Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Pasta July 24, 1996 

 

Korea Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip Aug. 6, 1999 
A-16 

TABLE A.8 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Korea–Continued Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 

 

Norway Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon Apr. 12, 1991 

South Africa Stainless steel plate in coils May 11, 1999 

 

Thailand Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

 

Turkey Pasta July 24, 1996 

 Welded carbon steel pipe Mar. 7, 1986 

 

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 
A-17 

TABLE A.9 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders completed in 2011, by date of completion 

USITC investigation 

number Product 

Country of 

origin 

Completion 

datea Action 

731-TA-1071 Magnesium China 2/24/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1072 Magnesium Russia 2/24/2011 Continued 

731-TA-298 Porcelain-on-steel cookware China 2/28/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1063 Frozen warmwater shrimp Brazil 3/30/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1064 Frozen warmwater shrimp China 3/30/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1066 Frozen warmwater shrimp India 3/30/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1067 Frozen warmwater shrimp Thailand 3/30/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1068 Frozen warmwater shrimp Vietnam 3/30/2011 Continued 

731-TA-308 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Brazil 3/30/2011 Continued

731-TA-309 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings China 3/30/2011 Continued

731-TA-310 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Japan 3/30/2011 Continued

731-TA-520 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Taiwan 3/30/2011 Continued

731-TA-521 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Thailand 3/30/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1084 Purified carboxymethylcellulose Finland 5/3/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1085 Purified carboxymethylcellulose Mexico 5/3/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-1086 Purified carboxymethylcellulose Netherlands 5/3/2011 Continued 

731-TA-1087 Purified carboxymethylcellulose Sweden 5/3/2011 Revoked 

701-TA-384 Hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products Brazil 6/2/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-806 Hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products Brazil 6/2/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-807 Hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products Japan 6/2/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-808 Hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products Russia 6/2/2011 Continued 

731-TA-669 Cased pencils China 6/24/2011 Continued 

731-TA-385 Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Italy 6/29/2011 Continued 

731-TA-663 Paper clips China 7/12/2011 Continued 

731-TA-856 Ammonium nitrate Russia 7/27/2011 Continued 

701-TA-382 Stainless steel sheet and strip Korea 7/27/2011 Continued 

731-TA-798 Stainless steel sheet and strip Germany 7/27/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-799 Stainless steel sheet and strip Italy 7/27/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-800 Stainless steel sheet and strip Japan 7/27/2011 Continued 

731-TA-801 Stainless steel sheet and strip Korea 7/27/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-802 Stainless steel sheet and strip Mexico 7/27/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-803 Stainless steel sheet and strip Taiwan 7/27/2011 Continued 

701-TA-379 Stainless steel plate South Africa 8/10/2011 Continued 

731-TA-788 Stainless steel plate Belgium 8/10/2011 Continued 

731-TA-790 Stainless steel plate Italy 8/10/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-791 Stainless steel plate Korea 8/10/2011 Continued 

731-TA-792 Stainless steel plate South Africa 8/10/2011 Continued 

731-TA-793 Stainless steel plate Taiwan 8/10/2011 Continued 

731-TA-457A–D Heavy forged handtools China 8/10/2011 Continued 

731-TA-825 Polyester staple fiber Korea 8/23/2011 Continued 

731-TA-825 Polyester staple fiber Taiwan 8/23/2011 Continued 

731-TA-459 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film Korea 8/29/2011 Continued

731-TA-718 Glycine China 8/30/2011 Continued

731-TA-847 Carbon and alloy seamless SLP pipe Japan 9/21/2011 Continued

731-TA-849 Carbon and alloy seamless SLP pipe Romania 9/21/2011 Continued

701-TA-318 Sulfanilic acid India 9/26/2011 Continued

731-TA-538 Sulfanilic acid China 9/26/2011 Continued

731-TA-561 Sulfanilic acid India 9/26/2011 Continued

731-TA-1091 Artist’s canvas China 10/25/2011 Continued

731-TA-696 Pure magnesium China 10/31/2011 Continued

731-TA-624 Helical spring lockwashers China 11/18/2011 Continued

731-TA-624 Helical spring lockwashers Taiwan 11/18/2011 Continued

731-TA-540 Welded stainless steel pipe Korea 12/1/2011 Continued

731-TA-541 Welded stainless steel pipe Taiwan 12/1/2011 Continued

731-TA-461 Gray portland cement and cement clinker Japan 12/2/2011 Continued

731-TA-340E Solid urea Russia 12/5/2011 Continued

731-TA-340H Solid urea Ukraine 12/5/2011 Continued

701-TA-388 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate India 12/16/2011 Continued

701-TA-390 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate Indonesia 12/16/2011 Continued

701-TA-391 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate Korea 12/16/2011 Continued

731-TA-817 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate India 12/16/2011 Continued

731-TA-818 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate Indonesia 12/16/2011 Continued

731-TA-819 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate Italy 12/16/2011 Revoked 
A-18 

TABLE A.9 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders completed in 2011, by date of 

completion–Continued

USITC Investigation 

number Product 

Country of 

origin 

Completion 

datea Action 

731-TA-320 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate Japan 12/16/2011 Revoked 

731-TA-321 Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate Korea 12/16/2011 Continued 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

 aThe completion date shown is the date of the USITC notification of USDOC. 
A-19 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on 

December 31, 2011 Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Completed: 337-TA-567 Certain Foam Footwear Canada One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

337-TA-568 Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing 

Recombinant Human Erythropoietin 

Germany, Switzerland One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-587 Certain Connecting Devices for Use with Modular Compressed 

Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and 

Lubricators (“FRLS”) That Are Part of Large Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect 

Japan One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-602 Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same Taiwan One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding 

and one related modification proceeding; terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-617 Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing 

Same and Methods of Using Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong One related (ancillary) bond forfeiture 

proceeding; terminated based on return of bond to respondents. 

337-TA-629 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing 

the Same 

Malaysia One related (ancillary) modification proceeding; 

terminated based on partial rescission of limited exclusion order. 

337-TA-650 Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof 

and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan, China One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

issued a general exclusion order. 

337-TA-683 Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing 

Same 

Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Canada, Japan 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-685 Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same Japan, Taiwan, China Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-687 Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-690 Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof Japan Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 337-TA-691 Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof Hong Kong, China Issued a general exclusion order and cease and 

desist order. 
A-20 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on 

December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Completed–Continued337-TA-692 Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same Korea Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 337-TA-694 Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and 

Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-695 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing 

Same 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-700 Certain MEMS Devices and Products Containing Same No foreign respondents Issued a limited exclusion order. 337-TA-701 Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable 

Music Players, and Computers 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-704 Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and 

Components Thereof 

Finland Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-709 Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing 

Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras 

Japan Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-710 Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and 

Related Software 

Taiwan, Finland Issued a limited exclusion order. 

337-TA-712 Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 337-TA-713 Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and 

Monitors 

Hong Kong, Taiwan, China 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-714 Certain Electronic Devices with Multi-Touch Enabled 

Touchpads and Touchscreens 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-716 Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips 

and Products Containing Same 

Japan, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-717 Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-718 Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and 

Components Thereof 

Canada, Turkey, Hong Kong, Taiwan 

Issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

337-TA-720 Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, 

Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same 

Korea Issued a limited exclusion order. 
A-21 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on 

December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Completed–Continued337-TA-722 Certain Automotive Vehicles and Designs Thereof China Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and 

desist orders.

337-TA-723 Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components 

Thereof 

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China 

Issued a general exclusion order. 

337-TA-724 Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, 

Components Thereof, and Associated Software 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-726 Certain Electronic Imagining Devices Finland, Canada, Taiwan, 

Korea 

Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-728 Certain Collaborative System Products and Components 

Thereof II

China Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-730 Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof Hong Kong, China Issued a general exclusion order. 337-TA-731 Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof China, Hong Kong Terminated based on a consent order. 337-TA-732 Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel and Components 

Thereof 

Hong Kong, China, Japan Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-733 Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions and Components Thereof Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-734 Certain Adjustable Height Beds and Components Thereof China Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-735 Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the 

Same 

Korea, Finland, Canada, Taiwan, China 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-736 Certain Wind and Solar-Powered Light Posts and Street Lamps Canada Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-737 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products 

Interoperable with the Same 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-738 Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots with 

GPS or IMU 

Japan, Norway, United Kingdom 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 
A-22 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on 

December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Completed–Continued337-TA-740 Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof China, Hong Kong, 

Canada, Korea, Macao

Issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

337-TA-742 Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof Taiwan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-747 Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and 

Parental Controls Technology 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-748 Certain Data Storage Products and Components Thereof Malaysia Terminated based on withdrawal of the complaint. 337-TA-751 Certain Turbomachinery Blades, Engines and Components 

Thereof 

United Kingdom Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-757 Certain Game Devices, Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing the Same 

United Kingdom Terminated based on withdrawal of the complaint. 

337-TA-758 Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-759 Certain Birthing Simulators and Associated Systems China Issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and 

desist order. 

337-TA-760 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Products Containing 

Same, and Methods for Using the Same 

Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-763 Certain Radio Control Hobby Transmitters and Receivers and 

Products Containing Same 

China Issued a limited exclusion order. 

337-TA-765 Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and 

Monitors II 

Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-766 Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing Same China, India Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-767 Certain Glassware No foreign respondents Terminated based on a consent order. 337-TA-771 Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile 

Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers, and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-774 Certain Electronic Devices Having a Digital Television Receiver 

and Components Thereof 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 
A-23 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on 

December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Pending337-TA-779 Certain Flip-Top Vials and Products Using the Same Germany, France Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint.

337-TA-487 Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof Canada One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-565 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof Hong Kong, China, 

Germany, Korea 

One related (ancillary) advisory proceeding and two modification proceedings; pending before the 

ALJ.

337-TA-650 Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof 

and Products Containing Same 

No foreign respondents One related (ancillary) advisory proceeding; 

pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-698 Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same Taiwan, Hong Kong One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; 

pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-703 Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication 

Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof 

Canada, Mexico, China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-721 Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software China Pending before the Commission. 337-TA-739 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products 

Containing Same 

China Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-741 (consolidated with 337-TA-749) 

Certain Liquid Crystal Displays Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-744 Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components 

Thereof 

No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-745 Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and 

Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-746 Certain Automated Media Library Devices Germany, China, Mexico Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-749 (consolidated with 337-TA-741) 

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-750 Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 
A-24 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Pending–Continued337-TA-752 Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related 

Software, and Components Thereof

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-753 Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same Taiwan, Switzerland, 

United Kingdom, Hong Kong 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-754 Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories and Packaging 

Thereof 

China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-755 Certain Starter Motors and Alternators China Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-756 Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers 

and Products 

Austria, Germany Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-761 Certain Set-Top Boxes, and Hardware and Software 

Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-762 Certain Strollers and Playards No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-768 Certain Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices Netherlands, Canada Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-769 Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related 

Software, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan, China, Hong Kong 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-770 Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and 

Components Thereof 

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-772 Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and 

Related Methods 

Korea Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-773 (consolidated with 337-TA-787) 

Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same II 

Japan, Denmark, China, Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong 

Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-775 Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-776 Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches 

and Parts Thereof (IV) 

China Pending before the ALJ. 
A-25 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on 

December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Pending–Continued337-TA-778 Certain Equipment for Communications Networks, Including 

Switches, Routers, Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems, IP Phones, and Products Containing Same 

Netherlands Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-780 Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-781 Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same 

Costa Rica, Malaysia, Philippines, China 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-782 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing 

the Same 

Taiwan, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-786 Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing 

Same, Including Televisions 

Japan, Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-787 (consolidated with 337-TA-773) 

Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same II 

Japan, Taiwan Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-788 Certain Universal Serial Bus ("USB") Portable Storage Devices, 

Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof 

Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-789 Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof Canada, Taiwan, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-790 Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products and Methods of Making Same China, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-791 Certain Electric Fireplaces, Components Thereof, Manuals for 

Same, Certain Processes For Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same 

China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-792 Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products 

Containing Same 

France, Sweden, Netherlands 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-793 Certain Flat Panel Display Devices, and Products Containing 

the Same 

Korea Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-794 Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication 

Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 
A-26 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on 

December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Pending–Continued337-TA-795 Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same

Germany, Korea, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-796 Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components 

Thereof 

Korea Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-797 Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-798 Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same Germany Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-799 Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing 

the Same 

Japan, Canada Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-800 Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components 

Thereof 

China, Finland Pending before the ALJ 

337-TA-801 Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and 

Parental Controls Technology 

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-802 Certain Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same Germany Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-803 Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash 

Memory Devices and Products Containing Same 

Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland 

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-804 Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components 

Thereof 

China, Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-805 Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity used in a Backlight 

Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same 

Korea Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-806 Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices 

and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-807 Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and 

Components Thereof 

Taiwan, Canada, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 
A-27 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Pending–Continued337-TA-808 Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, 

Components Thereof, and Related Software

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-809 Certain Devices For Mobile Data Communication Canada Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-810 Certain Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related 

Software 

United Kingdom Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-811 Certain Integrated Solar Power Systems and Components 

Thereof 

Canada Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-812 Certain Computing Devices with Associated Instruction Sets 

and Software 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-813 Certain Electronic Devices with Graphics Data Processing 

Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-814 Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-815 Certain Projectors With Controlled-Angle Optical Retarders, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-816 Certain Wiper Blades Korea, Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-817 Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and 

Products Containing the Same, Including Power Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers and Other Devices Used in LANS, and Cameras 

Netherlands Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-818 Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-819 Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and 

Modules and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 
A-28 

TABLE A.10 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2011 and those pending on December 31, 2011–Continued

Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determination 

Pending–Continued337-TA-820 Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and 

Parental Controls Technology 

British Virgin Islands Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-821 Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices, and 

Products Containing Same 

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

a The country designation is based on the address of the foreign respondents named in the notice of investigation. "Hong Kong” refers to "Hong Kong, China”; 

“Korea” refers to “Republic of Korea.” 
A-29 

TABLE A.11 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2011 

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-55 Certain Novelty Glasses Hong Kong Nonpatent 

337-TA-69 Certain Airtight Cast-Iron Stoves Taiwan, Korea Nonpatent 

337-TA-87 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games 

and Components Thereof 

Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-105 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games 

and Components Thereof (viz Rally-X and 

Pac-Man) 

Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-112 Certain Cube Puzzles Taiwan, Japan, Canada Nonpatent 

337-TA-114 Certain Miniature Plug-In Blade Fuses Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-118 Certain Sneakers With Fabric Uppers and 

Rubber Soles 

Korea Nonpatent 

337-TA-137 Certain Heavy-Duty Staple Gun Tackers Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea Nonpatent 

337-TA-152 Certain Plastic Food Storage Containers Hong Kong, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-167 Certain Single Handle Faucets Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-174 Certain Woodworking Machines Taiwan, South Africa Nonpatent 

337-TA-195 Certain Cloisonne Jewelry Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-197 Certain Compound Action Metal Cutting Snips 

and Components Thereof 

Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-229 Certain Nut Jewelry and Parts Thereof Philippines, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-231 Certain Soft Sculpture Dolls, Popularly Known 

as "Cabbage Patch Kids," Related Literature, 

and Packaging Therefor 

No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-266 Certain Reclosable Plastic Bags and Tubing Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, 

Thailand, Hong Kong 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-279 Certain Plastic Light Duty Screw Anchors Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-285 Certain Chemiluminescent Compositions and 

Components Thereof and Methods of Using, 

and Products Incorporating, the Same 

France Nonpatent 

337-TA-287 Certain Strip Lights Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-295 Certain Novelty Teleidoscopes Hong Kong, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-319 Certain Automotive Fuel Caps and Radiator 

Caps and Related Packaging and 

Promotional Materials 

Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-321 Certain Soft Drinks and Their Containers Colombia Nonpatent 

337-TA-378 Certain Asian-Style Kamaboko Fish Cakes Japan Nonpatent 

337-TA-380 Certain Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power 

Take-Off Horsepower 

Japan Nonpatent 

337-TA-406 Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages China, Hong Kong, Korea Apr. 18, 2012 

July 25, 2012 

337-TA-413 Certain Rare-Earth Magnets and Magnetic 

Material and Articles Containing Same 

China, Taiwan July 8, 2014 

337-TA-424 Certain Cigarettes and Packaging 

Thereof 

No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-440 Certain 4-Androstenediol China July 13, 2018 

337-TA-446 Certain Ink Jet Cartridges and Components 

Thereof 

Taiwan Apr. 25, 2012 

337-TA-448 Certain Oscillating Sprinklers, Sprinkler 

Components, and Nozzles 

Taiwan, Israel, Germany July 8, 2014 

337-TA-474 Certain Recordable Compact Discs and 

Rewritable Compact Discs 

Hong Kong, Taiwan May 23, 2012 
A-30 

TABLE A.11 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-481/491 Certain Display Controllers with Upscaling 

Functionality and Products Containing Same; 

and Certain Display Controllers and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan Feb. 24, 2017 

337-TA-482 Certain Compact Disc and DVD Holders Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan May 1, 2015 

337-TA-486 Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, 

Riding Lawnmowers, and Components 

Thereof 

China Nonpatent 

337-TA-487 Certain Agricultural Vehicles and 

Components Thereof 

China, Netherlands, France, 

Germany, and Canada 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-489 Certain Sildenafil or Any Pharmaceutically 

Acceptable Salt Thereof, Such as Sildenafil 

Citrate, and Products Containing Same 

Belize, Israel, Nicaragua, Syria, 

United Kingdom, India, China 

Mar. 27, 2012 

337-TA-494 Certain Automotive Measuring Devices, 

Products Containing Same, and Bezels for 

Such Devices 

Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-498 Certain Insect Traps No foreign respondents Jan. 30, 2018 

337-TA-500 Certain Purple Protective Gloves Malaysia Nonpatent 

337-TA-505 Certain Gun Barrels Used in Firearms Switzerland, Netherlands Sept. 25, 2015 

337-TA-512 Certain Light-Emitting Diodes And Products 

Containing Same 

Malaysia Jan. 18, 2015 

Sept. 22, 2017 

Sept. 22, 2017 

Sept. 22, 2017 

Sept. 22, 2017 

July 27, 2018 

July 27, 2018 

July 27, 2018 

337-TA-514 Certain Plastic Food Containers China Oct. 19, 2013 

Dec. 23, 2017 

Dec. 23, 2017 

337-TA-518 Certain Ear Protection Devices China, Taiwan June 2, 2015 

337-TA-522 Certain Ink Markers and Packaging Thereof China, India, Korea Nonpatent 

337-TA-539 Certain Tadalafil or Any Salt or Solvate 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

India, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, 

Mexico, Australia 

Jun. 12, 2016 

337-TA-541 Certain Power Supply Controllers and 

Products Containing Same 

Taiwan Sept. 24, 2019 

Sept. 24, 2019 

337-TA-545 Certain Laminated Floor Panels Netherlands, Canada, China, 

Malaysia 

Jun. 10, 2017 

Jun. 10, 2017 

Jun. 10, 2017 

337-TA-549 Certain Ink Sticks for Solid Ink Printers Korea Apr. 29, 2022 

Apr. 29, 2022 

Apr. 29, 2022 

337-TA-557 Certain Automotive Parts Taiwan Jun. 22, 2018 

July 27, 2018 

Sept. 28, 2018 

Oct. 5, 2018 

Oct. 26, 2018 

Mar. 1, 2019 

Mar. 22, 2019 

337-TA-563 Certain Portable Power Stations and 

Packaging Therefor 

China Feb. 4, 2017 

Nonpatent 

Nonpatent 
A-31 

TABLE A.11 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-564 Certain Voltage Regulators Components 

Thereof and Products Containing Same 

Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, China Mar. 23, 2013 

337-TA-565 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components 

Thereof 

Hong Kong, China, Germany, 

Korea 

Jan. 30, 2013 

Oct. 1, 2013 

Apr. 1, 2014 

May 18, 2019 

May 18, 2019 

Apr. 3, 2022 

Aug. 26, 2023 

Aug. 17, 2023 

337-TA-575 Certain Lighters Hong Kong, China Nonpatent 

337-TA-582 Certain Hydraulic Excavators and 

Components Thereof 

Canada, Japan Nonpatent 

337-TA-588 Certain Digital Multimeters, and Products with 

Multimeter Functionality 

Hong Kong, China Nonpatent 

337-TA-590 Certain Coupler Devices for Power Supply 

Facilities, Components Thereof 

Taiwan, Germany, China Aug. 5, 2024 

337-TA-602 Certain GPS Devices and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan, China, Germany, 

Singapore 

July 13, 2020 

Nov. 17, 2020 

May 18, 2021 

July 25, 2021 

Jun. 13, 2023 

Sept. 29, 2023 

337-TA-603 Certain DVD Players and Recorders and 

Certain Products Containing Same 

China, Hong Kong Dec. 23, 2014 

Jan. 18, 2015 

Jun. 30, 2016 

337-TA-604 Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing 

Sucralose, and Related Intermediate 

Compounds Thereof 

China Nov. 28, 2012 

Oct. 17, 2017 

Apr. 18, 2023 

337-TA-611 Certain Magnifying Loupe Products and 

Components Thereof 

China July 19, 2013 

Dec. 3, 2013 

May 20, 2022 

337-TA-615 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and 

Products Containing the Same 

China Oct. 24, 2014 

Nov. 21, 2020 

May 3, 2021 

Apr. 28, 2025 

337-TA-617 Certain Digital Televisions and Certain 

Products Containing Same and Methods of 

Using Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China Apr. 9, 2018 

337-TA-629 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and 

Products Containing the Same 

Malaysia Jun. 21, 2021 

Sept. 16, 2022 

337-TA-636 Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing 

Plates 

Israel, Canada Jan. 30, 2012 

July 20, 2012 

337-TA-637 Certain Hair Irons and Packaging Thereof Singapore, China, Hong Kong Nonpatent 

337-TA-638 Certain Intermediate Bulk Containers China Mar. 16, 2012 

Mar. 21, 2015 

337-TA-643 Certain Cigarettes and Packages Moldova, Belize, Singapore, 

Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Gibraltar, 

United Kingdom, Switzerland 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-644 Certain Composite Wear Components and 

Products Containing the Same 

India, Italy Aug. 27, 2017 
A-32 

TABLE A.11 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2011–Continued

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-650 Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and 

Components Thereof and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan, China Aug. 2, 2017 

Jan. 24, 2020 

337-TA-655 Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain 

Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to 

Same and Certain Products Containing Same 

China Feb. 16, 2020 

337-TA-661 Certain Semiconductor Chips Having 

Synchronous Dynamic Random Access 

Memory Controllers and Products Containing 

Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong Oct. 19, 2015 

Oct. 19, 2015 

Oct. 19, 2015 

337-TA-669 Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

No foreign respondents June 25, 2013 

337-TA-678 Certain Energy Drink Products No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-679 Certain Products Advertised As Containing 

Creatine Ethyl Ester 

No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-725 Certain Caskets Mexico May 10, 2015 

May 10, 2015 

July 9, 2016 

May 10 2015 

Sept. 13, 2020 

337-TA-730 Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components 

Thereof 

Hong Kong, China Aug. 20, 2023 

Oct. 29, 2023 

337-TA-740 Certain Toner Cartridges and Components 

Thereof 

China, Hong Kong, Canada, 

Korea, Macao 

Feb. 26, 2013 

Feb. 16, 2016 

Feb. 16, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Feb. 18, 2018 

Sept. 22, 2019 

July 18, 2021 

May 21, 2023 

Apr. 29, 2023 

July 15, 2022 

July 15, 2022 

Dec. 19, 2024 

337-TA-759 Certain Birthing Simulators and Associated 

Systems 

China May 8, 2016 

May 8, 2016 

337-TA-763 Certain Radio Control Hobby Transmitters 

and Receivers and Products Containing 

Same 

China Oct. 18, 2025 

May 28, 2113 

Nonpatent 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

 aThis column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the notice of investigation. 

 bMultiple dates indicate the expiration dates of separate patents within the investigation. 
A-33 

TABLE A.12 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by leading GSP beneficiary, 2009–11

Source 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

 Thousands of $ 

India 2,847,961 3,481,732 3,736,156 7.3 

Thailand 2,886,221 3,611,700 3,719,574 3.0 

Brazil 1,977,768 2,123,960 2,059,096 –3.1 

Indonesia 1,454,709 1,856,496 1,965,418 5.9 

South Africa 742,323 1,200,196 1,332,575 11.0 

Philippines 733,638 912,670 1,133,796 24.2 

Turkey 644,478 792,938 894,703 12.8 

Russia 252,417 578,012 574,780 –0.6 

Argentina 505,876 528,607 477,129 –9.7 

Colombia 188,730 158,516 383,634 142.0 

Angola 4,142,418 3,543,798 300,237 –91.5 

Yemen 13 11 155,713 1,447,722.4 

Ecuador 52,263 54,273 147,406 171.6 

Sri Lanka 115,923 146,518 135,237 –7.7 

Namibia 1,596 742 134,304 18,003.9 

Pakistan 169,474 164,944 130,686 –20.8 

Georgia 17,343 100,935 117,947 16.9 

Venezuela 126,596 113,242 115,914 2.4 

Tunisia 152,590 139,135 98,747 –29.0 

Kazakhstan 48,087 60,710 93,322 53.7 

 All other 3,198,545 2,984,772 832,706 –72.1 

 Total 20,258,971 22,553,906 18,539,081 –17.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 
A-34 

TABLE A.13 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

0 Food and live animals 1,625 1,828 2,119 15.9 1 Beverages and tobacco 181 175 204 16.6 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 157 133 221 66.2 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 6,482 5,433 481 –91.1 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 171 142 141 –0.3 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,949 2,491 2,568 3.1 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,824 5,555 6,091 9.6 7 Machinery and transport equipment 3,071 3,717 3,836 3.2 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,781 3,033 2,875 –5.2 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 17 46 2 –95.4 

 Total 20,259 22,554 18,539 –17.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-35

TABLE A.14 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under the GSP, by HTS provision, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

7113.11.50 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of silver, n.e.s.o.i., valued over $18 per dozen pieces or parts 499 598 665 11.27606.12.30 Aluminum alloy plates, sheets, and strip, of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm, rectangular (including 

square), not clad 

188 398 492 23.5

4011.10.10 New pneumatic rubber radial tires used on motor cars 367 495 409 –17.34011.20.10 New pneumatic rubber radial tires used on buses or trucks 145 230 386 67.67202.41.00 Ferrochromium containing more than 3 percent of carbon 112 377 386 2.42709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 5,876 4,696 346 –92.67202.30.00 Ferrosilicon manganese 78 247 279 12.71701.11.10 Raw sugar not containing added flavoring or coloring 149 186 274 47.42106.90.99 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included 166 217 260 19.54015.19.10 Gloves, mittens and mitts, seamless, of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber, other than surgical 

or medical 

140 187 224 20.2

6909.19.50 Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical or other technical uses (o/than of porcelain or china), 

n.e.s.o.i. 

32 118 203 72.1

7202.21.50 Ferrosilicon containing by weight more than 55 but not more than 80 percent silicon, and not more 

than 3 percent calcium 

60 198 170 –14.2

8409.99.91 Parts n.e.s.o.i., used solely or principally with compression-ignition internal combustion piston 

engines, for motor vehicles 

53 86 156 81.6

7901.11.00 Zinc, not alloyed, unwrought, containing 99.99% or more by weight of zinc 11 20 154 678.18708.30.50 Brakes and servo-brakes and parts thereof, for personal and commercial motor vehicles, excluding 

tractors suitable for agricultural use 

83 144 145 1.0

7113.19.29 Gold necklaces and neck chains, other than rope or mixed link 187 206 138 –33.15703.10.20 Hand-hooked carpets of wool or fine animal hair 88 124 137 10.01704.90.35 Confections ready for consumption 118 131 137 4.68483.10.30 Camshafts and crankshafts, except those designed for spark-ignition internal combustion piston or 

rotary engines

82 137 136 –0.5

2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 606 737 136 –81.6

Total of items shown 9,039 9,532 5,232 –45.1

All other 11,220 13,022 13,307 2.2

Total of all commodities 20,259 22,554 18,539 –17.8

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-36 

TABLE A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA, by source, 2009–11

Source 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

 Thousands of $ 

Nigeria 17,228,232 25,153,807 31,003,705 23.3 

Angola 4,225,139 6,293,944 11,534,112 83.3 

Chad 1,190,403 1,186,314 2,991,226 152.1 

Republic of South Africa 1,642,893 1,902,140 2,464,831 29.6 

Republic of the Congo 1,471,657 1,935,530 1,935,187 0.0 

Gabon 1,210,007 1,124,244 477,521 –57.5 

Ghana 2,303 2,053 414,094 20,072.6 

Lesotho 277,046 280,342 314,311 12.1 

Kenya 204,982 220,636 288,273 30.7 

Mauritius 98,747 117,911 155,982 32.3 

Cameroon 96,750 113,469 137,372 21.1 

Swaziland 94,718 92,798 77,121 –16.9 

Malawi 39,734 47,191 56,146 19.0 

Botswana 12,362 11,559 15,479 33.9 

Ethiopia 6,723 6,875 10,887 58.3 

Tanzania 1,006 1,850 5,131 177.3 

Uganda 222 345 787 128.2 

Mozambique 0 184 689 275.1 

Cape Verde 0 146 154 5.8 

Rwanda 63 10 17 65.4 

Namibia 0 5 13 143.0 

Zambia 7 (a

) 10 2,834.3 

Senegal 1,585 7 3 –59.5 

Burkina Faso 0 2 2 –0.6 

Mali 62 4 2 –55.3 

The Gambia 0 5 1 –73.6 

Democratic Republic 

 of the Congo 35,652 147,042 0 –100.0 

Mauritania 0 26,396 0 –100.0 

Madagascar 210,004 0 0 (b

) 

Djibouti 17 0 0 (b

) 

Niger 3 0 0 (b

) 

Guinea 1 0 0 (b

) 

Benin 0 0 0 (b

) 

Burundi 0 0 0 (b

) 

Comoros 0 0 0 (b

) 

Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 (b

) 

Liberia 0 0 0 (b) 

São Tomé and Príncipe 0 0 0 (b

) 

Seychelles 0 0 0 (b

) 

Sierra Leone 0 0 0 (b

) 

Togo 0 0 0 (b) 

 Total 28,050,318 38,664,807 51,883,054 34.2 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 

 aLess than $500. 

 b

Not applicable. 
A-37 

TABLE A.16 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under AGOA, by HTS provision, 2009–11 

HTS no. Description 2009 2010 2011

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 23,395 33,842 42,623 25.92709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 1,550 1,518 4,811 216.88703.23.00 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity 1,500-3000 cc 1,310 1,471 1,995 35.6

2710.11.25 Naphthas, not motor fuel/blending stock, from petroleum oils/oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 261 357 616 72.6

2710.19.05 Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from bituminous minerals, 

testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 165 97 231 136.7

7202.11.50 Ferromanganese containing by weight more than 4 percent carbon 87 142 205 44.12710.11.45 Mixtures of hydrocarbons n.e.s.o.i., none comprising over half of product, 70% or more by weight from 

petroleum oils and bituminous minerals 87 144 158 9.7

6203.42.40 Men’s or boys’ trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not containing 15 percent 

or more down 118 123 141 14.7

6204.62.40 Women’s or girls’ trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 191 116 126 8.46205.20.20 Men’s or boys’ shirts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not certified hand-loomed and folklore product 70 77 117 52.0

6110.30.30 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers, 

n.e.s.o.i. 69 66 73 9.5

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 111 84 62 –26.1

6104.62.20 Women’s or girls’ trousers, breeches, and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 67 55 49 –11.40802.60.80 Macadamia nuts, shelled 17 41 48 18.53823.70.60 Industrial fatty alcohols, other than derived from fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin 38 40 47 17.36104.63.20 Women’s or girls’ trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 18 23 41 80.70805.10.00 Oranges, fresh or dried 31 39 38 –1.82401.20.85 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped, threshed or similarly processed, not from cigar leaf 25 29 35 20.6

8703.24.00 Other passenger motor vehicles, with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity over 3,000 cc 53 58 35 –40.2

2710.19.45 Mixture of hydrocarbons from petro oils & bitum. min. or preps. 70%+ by wt. fr. petro. oils, n.e.s.o.i, n/o 50% 

any single hydrocarbon 0 (a) 31 43,322.5

6105.10.00 Men’s or boys’ shirts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 38 19 31 64.86105.20.20 Men’s or boys’ shirts, knitted or crocheted, of manmade fibers, containing less than 23 percent by weight of 

wool or fine animal hair 18 14 28 97.5

2710.11.15 Light motor fuel, 70 percent or more by weight from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals, other than crude 1 19 28 47.92204.21.50 Non-sparkling wine of fresh grapes, other than Tokay, not over 14 percent alcohol, in containers not over 2 

liters 23 27 27 0.1

6103.43.15 Men’s or boys’ trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 30 21 26 21.7

 Total of items shown 27,772 38,423 51,621 34.3

All other 278 242 262 8.4

 Total of all commodities 28,050 38,665 51,883 34.2

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

aU.S. value less than $500,000. 
A-38 

TABLE A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by source, 2009–11a

Source 2009 2010 2011 

% change

2010–11 

 Millions of $ 

Colombia 5,589 9,473 2,675 –71.8 

Ecuador 2,748 4,179 1,706 –59.2 

Peru 1,376 759 0 –100.0 

 Total 9,714 14,411 4,380 –69.6 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. 

 aPeru’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective January 1, 2011. Imports from Peru are included 

only through the end of 2010. Imports from Peru under ATPA after it was no longer a designated ATPA 

beneficiary were reported as $4.8 million in 2011. 
A-39 

TABLE A.18 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under ATPA, by HTS provision, 2009–11a HTS no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 6,036 8,772 2,772 –68.4 2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 921 3,172 857 –73.0 2710.19.05 Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from bituminous 

minerals, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 245 310 216 –30.5 

0603.11.00 Roses, fresh cut 305 314 140 –55.4 0603.19.00 Anthuriums, alstroemeria, gypsophilia, lilies, snapdragons and other flowers n.e.s.o.i., fresh 188 212 64 –69.6 

2710.11.45 Mixtures of hydrocarbons n.e.s.o.i., none comprising over half of product, 70% or more by 

weight from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals 32 65 48 –26.0 

0603.14.00 Chrysanthemums, fresh cut 75 97 34 –64.9 0603.12.70 Carnations, other than miniature, fresh cut 34 40 19 –52.8 0804.50.40 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period September 1 through 

May 31 of the following year, inclusive 31 12 14 20.6 

1604.14.30 Tunas and skipjack, not in oil, in airtight containers, n.e.s.o.i. 43 44 10 –77.5 6203.42.40 Men’s or boys’ trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not 

containing 15 percent or more down 49 66 10 –85.0 

0603.12.30 Miniature (spray) carnations, fresh cut 22 22 9 –60.8 3904.10.00 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 19 23 8 –65.4 2106.90.99 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included 4 11 7 –35.2 1604.14.40 Tuna and skipjack, not in airtight containers 7 23 6 –73.6 0710.80.97 Vegetables n.e.s.o.i., uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, reduced in 

size 27 24 5 –77.2 

7610.10.00 Doors, windows, and their frames and thresholds for doors, of aluminum 13 17 5 –69.4 1704.90.35 Confections ready for consumption 16 21 5 –75.33921.12.11 Nonadhesive plates, sheets, film, foil, strip 8 14 5 –64.2 2008.99.15 Bananas, other than pulp, otherwise prepared or preserved, n.e.s.o.i. 13 14 4 –69.1 9602.00.50 Vegetable, mineral or gum materials, worked and articles of these materials 9 11 4 –64.2 6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 95 75 4 –95.0 6908.90.00 Glazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed ceramic mosaic cubes and the 

like, n.e.s.o.i. 24 26 4 –85.6 

6112.41.00 Women’s or girls’ knitted or crocheted swimwear of synthetic fibers 7 8 4 –54.2 6910.10.00 Porcelain or china ceramic sinks, washbasins, baths, bidets, water closet bowls, urinals, and 

similar sanitary fixtures 1 10 3 –65.7 

 Total of items shown 8,223 13,403 4,258 –68.2 

All other 1,491 1,008 122 –87.9  Total of all commodities 9,714 14,411 4,380 –69.6 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 

aPeru’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective January 1, 2011. Imports from Peru are included only through the end of 2010. Imports from Peru 

under ATPA after it was no longer a designated ATPA beneficiary were reported as $4.8 million in 2011. 
A-40 

TABLE A.19 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by source, 2009–11a

Source 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

 2010–11 

 Thousands of $ 

 

Trinidad and Tobago 1,533,773 2,205,811 2,594,465 17.6 

Haiti 388,854 364,114 474,602 30.3 

Jamaica 212,365 83,910 179,045 113.4 

Belize 66,019 61,744 146,045 136.5 

The Bahamas 96,545 98,989 123,854 25.1 

Panama 20,607 28,435 55,184 94.1 

St. Kitts-Nevis 8,919 20,466 27,273 33.3 

Guyana 14,418 10,632 11,129 4.7 

Barbados 4,603 7,233 4,493 –37.9 

St. Lucia 10,937 9,199 1,889 –79.5 

Grenada 78 150 257 71.5 

Aruba 153 566 249 –56.0 

Dominica 115 53 149 180.9 

British Virgin Islands 26 86 136 57.9 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 117 124 88 –28.7 

Antigua and Barbuda 231 (b) (b) 10.5 

Netherlands Antilles 868 988 0 –100.0 

Montserrat 0 0 0 (c

) 

Total 2,358,628 2,892,500 3,618,860 25.1 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 

 a

The Netherlands Antilles was dissolved on October 10, 2010. Imports from the Netherlands Antilles are included 

only through October 2010. Imports from the Netherlands Antilles under CBERA after its dissolution were reported 

as $206,000 in 2010 and $344,000 in 2011. 

 b

Less than $500. 

 c

Not applicable. 
A-41 

TABLE A.20 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under CBERA, by HTS provision, 2009–11a HTS no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 800 1,249 1,274 2.02905.11.20 Methanol (methyl alcohol), n.e.s.o.i. 568 890 1,097 23.32207.10.60 Undenatured ethyl alcohol for nonbeverage purposes 203 10 239 2,228.36110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton, 

n.e.s.o.i. 152 125 221 76.4

6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 194 204 213 4.73903.11.00 Polystyrene, expandable, in primary forms 94 95 122 28.12710.19.05 Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from bituminous 

minerals, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 29 32 96 202.6

1701.11.10 Raw sugar not containing added flavoring or coloring 11 26 68 163.92710.19.10 Distillate/residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum oils or oil of bituminous 

minerals, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 0 0 29 (b

)

2933.61.00 Melamine 0 6 24 286.76109.90.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers 16 20 18 –9.20714.90.20 Fresh or chilled yams, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets 16 14 17 17.18525.50.30 Transmission apparatus for television, n.e.s.o.i. 0 11 16 43.80807.20.00 Papayas (papaws), fresh 11 12 13 5.22710.11.25 Naphthas, not motor fuel/blending stock, from petroleum oils/oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 60 0 12 (b

)

7108.12.50 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought, other than gold bullion and ore 9 17 8 –54.11604.14.40 Tuna and skipjack, not in airtight containers 13 10 8 –26.40804.30.40 Pineapples, fresh or dried, not reduced in size, in crates or other packages 6 8 7 –11.20804.50.40 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period September 1 through 

May 31 of the following year, inclusive 5 1 7 454.4

2202.10.00 Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other 

sweetening matter or flavored 3 6 7 12.3

2009.11.00 Frozen concentrated orange juice 17 7 6 –2.82103.90.80 Mixed condiments and mixed seasonings, excluding articles containing over 10 percent sugars 

and cake decorations or similar products 4 5 6 17.9

2008.99.90 Fruit and other edible parts of plants n.e.s.o.i., other than pulp, otherwise prepared or 

preserved, n.e.s.o.i. 4 4 5 12.6

2202.90.90 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i. 5 5 5 –3.02207.10.30 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent volume or higher, 

for beverage purposes 6 10 5 –49.8

 Total of items shown 2,226 2,768 3,521 27.2

All other 133 125 98 –21.4 Total of all commodities 2,359 2,893 3,619 25.1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 

aThe Netherlands Antilles was dissolved on October 10, 2010. Imports from the Netherlands Antilles are included only through October 2010. Imports from the 

Netherlands Antilles under CBERA after its dissolution were reported as $206,000 in 2010 and $344,000 in 2011. bNot applicable. 
A-42 

TABLE A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2011 

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS217 United 

States—Continued 

Dumping and Subsidy 

Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd 

Amendment) 

Australia, Brazil, 

Chile, European 

Communities 

(EC), India, 

Indonesia, Japan, 

Korea, Thailand 

Complaining parties request consultations (12/21/00). 

Panel established (08/23/01) and composed (10/25/01). 

Panel report circulated to members (09/16/02). 

U.S. notifies Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) it will appeal 

panel decision (10/18/02). 

Appellate Body circulates its report (06/16/03). 

Arbitrator finds that U.S. has failed to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings (01/15/04). 

Arbitrator circulates decisions relating to level of 

suspension of concessions to offset U.S. Byrd 

Amendment distributions (08/31/04). 

Authority to retaliate granted (11/26/04, 12/17/04). 

DSB authorizes or takes note of various requests or 

agreements to suspend concessions (2004–05). 

U.S. states at DSB meeting that recent changes bring 

U.S. law into conformity with its WTO obligations 

(02/17/06). 

Japan and EC notify DSB annually of the new list of 

products on which the additional import duty would apply, 

prior to the entry into force of a level of suspension of 

concessions (2006–11). 

 

DS294 United States—Laws, 

Regulations and 

Methodology for 

Calculating Dumping 

Margins (Zeroing) 

European 

Communities 

EC requests consultations (06/12/03). 

Panel established (03/19/04) and composed (10/27/04). 

Panel report circulated (10/31/05). 

Appellate Body report circulated (04/18/06). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified (05/09/06). 

U.S. announces that it intends to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings (05/30/06). 

U.S. and EC agree, pursuant to Dispute Settlement 

Understanding (DSU) Article 21.3(b), to the reasonable 

period of time for implementation (07/28/06). 

U.S. and EC reach an Understanding on Article 21 and 22 

procedures (05/04/07). 

EC requests Article 21.5 consultations (07/09/07). 

Brazil and Korea request to join the consultations 

(07/20/07). 

EC requests establishment of Article 21.5 panel 

(09/13/07). Article 21.5 Appellate Body report adopted 

(06/11/09). 

EC requests authorization to suspend concessions or 

other obligations per Article 22.2 of DSU (01/29/10). 

U.S. informs DSB it objects to suspension level proposed 

by the EU (02/12/10). 

DSB refers the matter to arbitration (02/18/10). 

European Union and United States at various times during 

2010–early 2012 jointly request that the Arbitrator 

suspend work; work suspended through June 28, 2012. 
A-43 

TABLE A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2011–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS316 European 

Communities—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large 

Civil Aircraft 

United States U.S. requests consultations with EC (10/06/04). 

Panel established (07/20/05) and composed (10/17/05). 

Panel circulates its report (06/30/10). 

EU appeals decision to Appellate Body (07/21/10); U.S. 

does the same (08/19/10). 

Appellate Body report circulated (05/18/11). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (06/01/11). 

EU informs DSB it intends to implement DSB 

recommendation (06/17/11). 

EU informs DSB it has taken steps to bring its measures 

into conformity with obligations (12/01/11). 

U.S. requests consultations with EU under Article 21.5 and 

requests authority to take countermeasures (12/09/11). 

EU objects to requested level of U.S. measures and 

requests matter be referred to arbitration under Article 22.6;

DSB refers to arbitration (12/22/11). 

DS322 United States—Measures 

Relating to Zeroing and 

Sunset Reviews 

Japan Japan requests consultations (11/24/04). 

Panel established (02/28/05) and composed (04/15/05). 

Panel report circulated (09/20/06). 

Appellate Body report circulated (01/9/07). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (01/23/07). 

Agreement reached on the reasonable period of time for 

implementation (05/04/07). 

Article 21.3(c) Arbitration Report circulated (05/11/07). 

Japan seeks authorization to suspend concessions 

(01/10/08). 

Japan asks for establishment of Article 21.5 panel 

(04/07/08). 

United States and Japan request arbitrator to suspend work

(06/06/08). 

Article 21.5 panel report circulated (04/24/09). 

U.S. notifies DSB of intent to appeal (05/20/09). 

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report adopted (08/31/09). 

Japan requests arbitrator to resume arbitration proceedings

(04/23/10). 

U.S. and Japan request arbitrator to suspend work 

(12/15/10). Subsequent requests continue suspension 

through August 21, 2012 (02/01/12). 

U.S. and Japan inform DSB of memorandum of 

understanding regarding the dispute (02/06/12). 
A-44 

TABLE A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2011–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS344 United States—Final 

Antidumping Measures on 

Stainless Steel from 

Mexico 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations (05/26/06). 

Panel established (10/26/06) and composed (12/20/06). 

Panel report circulated (12/20/07). 

Mexico notifies DSB of decision to appeal (01/31/08). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (05/20/08). 

Mexico requests that the reasonable period of time for U.S.

implementation be determined through binding arbitration 

pursuant to Article 21.3(c) (08/11/08). 

Article 21.3 arbitration report circulated (10/31/08), setting 

April 30, 2009, as a reasonable time for the U.S. to 

implement. 

U.S. informs DSB that U.S. and Mexico concluded a 

sequencing agreement (05/20/09). 

Mexico requests establishment of a compliance panel 

(09/07/10). 

DSB agrees to refer the matter to the original panel if 

possible (09/21/10). 

Compliance panel composed (05/13/11). 

Panel chairman informs DSB that he expects to circulate a 

final report in March 2012 (11/09/11). 

DS350 United States—Continued 

Existence and Application 

of Zeroing Methodology 

European 

Communities 

EC requests consultations (10/02/06). 

Panel established (06/04/07) and composed (07/06/07). 

Panel report circulated (10/01/08). 

EC (11/06/08) and U.S. (11/18/08) notify DSB of decision to

appeal. 

Appellate Body and modified panel reports adopted 

(02/19/09). 

U.S. and EC agree that a reasonable time for the U.S. to 

implement is Dec. 19, 2009 (06/02/09). 

EU and U.S. notify the DSB of Agreed Procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 (01/04/10). 

EU and U.S. inform the DSB of a memorandum between 

the U.S. and European Commission which envisages a 

roadmap addressing the dispute (02/06/12). 

DS353 United States—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large 

Civil Aircraft—Second 

Complaint 

European 

Communities 

EC requests consultations (06/27/05). 

Panel established (02/17/06) and composed (11/22/06). 

Panel chairman informs DSB multiple times that panel 

needs additional time to complete work in light of 

complexities of the dispute (05/18/07, 07/11/08, 12/16/09, 

07/07/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (03/31/11). 

EU notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to Appellate Body

(04/01/11), and U.S. also notifies decision to appeal 

(04/28/11). 

Appellate Body report circulated to members (03/12/12). 

DS362 China—Measures 

Affecting the Protection 

and Enforcement of 

Intellectual Property Rights 

United States U.S. requests consultations with China (04/10/07). 

Panel established (09/25/07) and composed (12/13/07). 

Panel report circulated (01/26/09). 

Panel report adopted (03/20/09). 

China and U.S. inform the DSB that they have agreed that 

the reasonable period for China to implement the DSB 

recommendations is by March 20, 2010 (06/29/09). 

China and U.S. notify DSB of Agreed Procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (04/08/10). 
A-45 

TABLE A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2011–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS363 China—Measures 

Affecting Trading Rights 

and Distribution Services 

for Certain Publications 

and Audiovisual 

Entertainment Products 

United States U.S. requests consultations with China (04/10/07). 

Panel established (11/27/07) and composed (03/27/08). 

Panel report circulated (08/12/09). 

China (09/22/09) and U.S. (10/05/09) notify the DSB of their

respective decisions to appeal. 

Appellate Body report circulated to members (12/21/09). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (01/19/10). 

China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that a 

reasonable period for China to implement the DSB 

recommendations is by March 14, 2011 (07/12/10). 

China reports to DSB that it has made efforts to implement 

DSB recommendations; U.S. expresses concern about lack

of progress by China (03/25/11). 

U.S. and China inform DSB of agreed procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (04/13/11). 

China reports to the DSB it has completed amendments to 

most measures and has signed a memorandum of 

understanding with the U.S. (02/22/12). 

DS379 United States—Definitive 

Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on 

Certain Products from 

China 

China China requests consultations with U.S. (09/19/08). 

Panel established (01/20/09) and composed (03/04/09). 

Panel report circulated (10/22/10). 

China notifies DSB it will appeal the panel’s decision to the 

Appellate Body (12/01/10). 

Appellate Body report circulated (03/11/11). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (03/25/11). 

China and the U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that a

reasonable time for the U.S. to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations is Feb. 25, 2012 (07/5/11). 

China and the U.S. inform the DSB that they have modified

the reasonable time period, with the period to expire April 

25, 2012 (01/17/12). 

DS381 United States—Measures 

Concerning the 

Importation, Marketing and 

Sale of Tuna and Tuna 

Products 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations with the U.S. (10/24/08). 

Panel established (04/20/09) and composed (12/14/09). 

Panel chairman informs DSB panel expects to issue report 

in February 2011 (06/15/10). 

Parties agree on new panel member following death of one

member (08/12/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (09/15/11). 

U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal the panel’s 

decision (01/20/12); Mexico does the same (01/25/12). 

DS382 United States—AntiDumping Administrative 

Reviews and Other 

Measures Related to 

Imports of Certain Orange 

Juice from Brazil 

Brazil Brazil requests consultations with the U.S. (11/27/08). 

Panel established (09/25/09) and composed (05/10/10). 

Panel report circulated (03/25/11). 

DSB adopts the panel report, and Brazil and U.S. notify the

DSB that they have agreed that a reasonable time for the 

U.S. to implement the DSB recommendations expires on 

March 17, 2012 (06/17/11). 
A-46 

TABLE A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2011–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS384 United States—Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

(COOL) Requirements 

Canada Canada requests consultations with the U.S. (12/01/08). 

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

DS386 (11/19/09); panel composed (05/10/10). 

Panel chairman informs DSB that panel expects to issue its

final report to the parties in mid-2011 (12/21/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (11/18/11). 

Canada and the U.S. request the DSB to extend the 60-day

period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to March 23, 

2012 (12/21/11), and the DSB agrees (01/05/12). 

DS386 United States—Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

Requirements 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations with the U.S. (12/17/08). 

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

DS384 (11/19/09); panel composed (05/10/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (11/18/11). 

Mexico and the U.S. request the DSB to extend the 60-day

period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to March 23, 

2012 (12/21/11), and the DSB agrees (01/05/12). 

DS387 China—Grants, Loans and 

other Incentives 

United States U.S. requests consultations (12/19/08). 

DS389 European 

Communities—Certain 

Measures Affecting Poultry 

Meat and Poultry Meat 

Products from the United 

States 

United States U.S. requests consultations (01/16/09). 

Panel established (11/19/09). 

DS394 China—Measures Related 

to the Exportation of 

Various Raw Materials 

United States U.S. requests consultations (06/23/09). 

U.S. requests establishment of a panel (12/21/09). 

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

disputes DS395 and DS398 (12/21/09); panel composed 

(03/29/10). 

Panel circulated to members (07/05/11). 

China notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal (08/31/11). 

U.S. notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal (09/06/11). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (01/30/12). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified by Appellate Body (02/22/12). 

China informs DSB of its intention to implement DSB 

recommendations and of its need for a reasonable time to 

do so (03/23/12). 

DS399 United States—Measures 

Affecting Imports of Certain 

Passenger Vehicle and 

Light Truck Tyres from 

China 

China China requests consultations (09/14/09). 

Panel established (01/19/10) and composed (03/12/10). 

Panel report circulated (12/13/10). 

China notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate

Body (05/24/11). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (09/05/11). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

amended by Appellate Body (10/05/11). 
A-47 

TABLE A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2011–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS402 United States—Use of 

Zeroing in Anti-Dumping 

Measures Involving Products 

from Korea 

 Korea Korea requests consultations (11/24/09). 

Panel established (05/18/10) and composed (07/08/10). 

Panel report circulated (01/18/11). 

DSB adopts panel report (02/24/11). 

U.S. informs DSB that it intends to implement the DSB 

recommendations (03/25/11). 

U.S. and Korea inform DSB that they have agreed that a 

reasonable time for the U.S. to implement is Oct. 24 and 

Nov. 24, 2011 (06/17/11). 

U.S. reports to DSB that it has fully implemented the DSB’s

recommendations (12/19/11). 

DS403 Philippines—Taxes on 

Distilled Spirits 

United States U.S. requests consultations (01/14/10). 

Single panel established to consider DS403 and DS396 

(complaint by the EU) (04/20/10); panel composed 

(07/05/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (08/15/11). 

Philippines notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal to the 

Appellate Body (09/23/11), as does EU (09/28/11). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (12/21/11). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified by Appellate Body (01/20/12). 

DS404 United States—Antidumping Measures on 

Certain Shrimp from 

Viet Nam 

Vietnam Vietnam requests consultations (02/01/10). 

Panel established (05/18/10) and composed (07/26/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (07/11/11). 

DSB adopts panel report (09/02/11). 

Vietnam and U.S. inform DSB they have agreed that a 

reasonable time for the U.S. to implement the DSB 

recommendations expires on July 2, 2012 (10/31/11). 

DS406 United States—Measures 

Affecting the Production 

and Sale of Clove Cigarettes 

Indonesia Indonesia requests consultations (04/07/10). 

Panel established (07/20/10) and composed (09/09/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (09/02/11). 

U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate 

Body (01/05/12). 

DS413 China—Certain Measures 

Affecting Electronic Payment 

Services 

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/15/10). 

Panel established (03/25/11) and composed (07/04/11). 

Panel chairman notifies DSB that the panel expects to 

circulate its report to the parties by May 2012 (01/09/12). 

DS414 China—Countervailing and 

Anti-Dumping Duties on 

Grain Oriented Flat-rolled 

Electrical Steel from the 

United States 

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/15/10). 

Panel established (03/25/11) and composed (05/10/11). 

Panel chairman notifies DSB that the panel expects to 

circulate its report to the parties by May 2012 (09/19/11). 

DS419 China—Measures 

concerning wind power 

equipment 

United States U.S. requests consultations (12/22/10). 

EU and Japan request to join consultations (01/12/11 and 

01/17/11, respectively). 

DS420 United States—Antidumping Measures on 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from 

Korea 

Korea Korea requests consultations (01/31/11). 

Korea requests establishment of a panel (09/15/11). 

Korea withdraws request for panel (09/27/11). 

Korea requests establishment of a panel (02/09/12). 

Korea informs DSB of agreement on procedures between 

U.S. and Korea (02/14/12). 

Panel established (02/22/12). 
A-48 

TABLE A.21 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2011–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS422 United States—AntiDumping Measures on 

Shrimp and Diamond 

Sawblades from China 

China China requests consultations (02/28/11). 

Panel established (10/25/11) and composed (12/21/11). 

DS424 United States—AntiDumping Measures on 

Imports of Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Italy 

European Union EU requests consultations (04/01/11). 

Japan requests to join the consultations (04/18/11). 

DS427 China—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duty 

Measures on Broiler 

Products from the United 

States 

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/20/11). 

Panel established (01/20/12). 

Source: WTO, “Chronological List of Disputes Cases,” 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm. 

Note: This list focuses on formal actions in disputes during 2011; some intermediate procedural actions are omitted. 

Selected pre-2011 and post-2011 actions are noted to place the 2011 actions in context. 
A-49 

TABLE A.22 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations of USITC 

and USDOC, developments in 2011 

File no. Dispute Action (month/day/year) 

USA-CDA-2008-1904-02 Steel Wire Rod (USDOC Affirmative Final 

Antidumping Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(06/06/08). 

USA-CDA-2009-1904-01 Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod (USDOC 

Affirmative Final Antidumping Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(01/16/09). 

USA-CDA-2011-1904-03 Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada 

(USDOC Affirmative Final Antidumping 

Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(07/08/11). 

Terminated. 

USA-MEX-2007-1904-01 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (USDOC 

Affirmative Final Antidumping Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(01/22/07). Oral argument 

(09/10/09). 

Decision Date 1: (04/14/10). 

Decision Date 2: (08/17/11). 

USA-MEX-2007-1904-03 Welded Large Diameter Pipe (USITC Negative 

Sunset Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(11/21/07). Oral argument 

(07/21/10). 

Decision Date 1: (01/18/11). 

USITC remand determination 

(04/12/11). 

Decision Date 2: (08/29/11). 

USA-MEX-2008-1904-01 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (USDOC 

Affirmative Final Antidumping Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(03/12/08). 

USA-MEX-2008-1904-04 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

China, Korea, and Mexico (USITC Affirmative Final 

Injury Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(08/29/08). Oral argument 

(07/28/10). 

Panel order affirming in part and 

remanding in part (11/26/10). 

USITC remand determination 

(02/08/11). Panel order affirming 

USITC’s remand determination 

(03/10/11). 

USA-MEX-2009-1904-02 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (USDOC 

Affirmative Final Antidumping Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(03/11/09). 

USA-MEX-2010-1904-01 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Mexico (USDOC Results of Final AD Duty 

Administrative Review) 

Request for panel review 

(03/11/10). 

USA-MEX-2010-1904-02 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico (USITC Affirmative Final Injury 

Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(12/22/10). 

Terminated. 

USA-MEX-2010-1904-03 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico (USDOC Affirmative Final Antidumping 

Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(12/22/10). 

Terminated. 

USA-MEX-2011-1904-01 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Mexico (USDOC Affirmative Final Antidumping 

Determination) 

Request for panel review 

(02/11/11). 
A-50 

TABLE A.22 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations of USITC 

and USDOC, developments in 2011–Continued

File no. Dispute Action (month/day/year) 

USA-MEX-2011-1904-02 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico (USDOC Affirmative Final 

Antidumping Determination) 

Request for panel review (03/18/11). 

MEX-USA-2011-1904-01 Ácido Esteárico (Secretaría de Economía 

Affirmative Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination) 

Request for panel review (11/04/11). 

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report: NAFTA and FTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings,” http://www.naftasec-alena.org/en/StatusReport.aspx

Note: This list includes active cases during 2011, including those in which little if any formal action occurred during 

2011.
A-51

TABLE A.23 U.S. trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2011 

Rank Country Exports Imports Total trade % of total trade

Millions of $ 

1 Canada 233,774 316,397 550,170 15.8

2 China 96,898 398,467 495,365 14.2

3 Mexico 159,910 262,671 422,581 12.1

4 Japan 61,409 127,901 189,310 5.4

5 Germany 44,240 96,539 140,779 4.0

6 United Kingdom 49,984 51,045 101,029 2.9

7 Korea 41,311 56,006 97,317 2.8

8 Brazil 37,275 30,368 67,643 1.9

9 Taiwan 23,775 41,213 64,988 1.9

10 France 25,361 39,596 64,957 1.9

11 Netherlands 38,254 23,117 61,371 1.8

12 Saudi Arabia 12,823 45,130 57,952 1.7

13 India 17,670 36,003 53,673 1.5

14 Venezuela 11,183 38,922 50,105 1.4

15 Italy 14,935 33,160 48,095 1.4

 Top 15 countries 868,800 1,596,536 2,465,336 70.7

All other 430,376 590,415 1,020,792 29.3

 Total 1,299,176 2,186,951 3,486,127 100.0

Source: USDOC. 
A-52 

TABLE A.24 Top 15 U.S. single-country export markets and import sources, 2011 

Rank Country 

 Millions of $ % of total exports 

Exports 

1 Canada 233,774 18.0 

2 Mexico 159,910 12.3 

3 China 96,898 7.5 

4 Japan 61,409 4.7 

5 United Kingdom 49,984 3.8 

6 Germany 44,240 3.4 

7 Korea 41,311 3.2 

8 Netherlands 38,254 2.9 

9 Brazil 37,275 2.9 

10 Singapore 28,224 2.2 

11 Hong Kong 27,520 2.1 

12 Belgium 25,881 2.0 

13 Australia 25,491 2.0 

14 France 25,361 2.0 

15 Taiwan 23,775 1.8 

 Top 15 countries 919,306 70.8 

 All other 379,870 29.2 

 Total 1,299,176 100.0 

 

 Millions of $ % of total imports 

 Imports 

1 China 398,467 18.2 

2 Canada 316,397 14.5 

3 Mexico 262,671 12.0 

4 Japan 127,901 5.8 

5 Germany 96,539 4.4 

6 Korea 56,006 2.6 

7 United Kingdom 51,045 2.3 

8 Saudi Arabia 45,130 2.1 

9 Taiwan 41,213 1.9 

10 France 39,596 1.8 

11 Ireland 39,072 1.8 

12 Venezuela 38,922 1.8 

13 India 36,003 1.6 

14 Nigeria 33,835 1.5 

15 Russia 33,610 1.5 

 Top 15 countries 1,616,406 73.9 

 All other 570,545 26.1 

 Total 2,186,951 100.0 

Source: USDOC. 
A-53 

TABLE A.25 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union,a by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 

SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 5,204 6,054 7,018 15.9 1 Beverages and tobacco 1,314 1,477 1,494 1.1 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 6,918 9,630 11,129 15.6 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 11,041 13,235 25,069 89.4 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 215 265 430 62.3 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 50,045 53,368 51,923 –2.7 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 10,773 13,687 15,764 15.2 7 Machinery and transport equipment 75,341 75,260 82,786 10.0 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 27,384 27,421 27,996 2.1 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 14,158 16,932 17,480 3.2 

 Total 202,392 217,329 241,089 10.9 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 4,874 5,365 6,260 16.7 1 Beverages and tobacco 8,597 9,149 10,212 11.6 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,020 2,645 3,057 15.6 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 15,900 18,991 24,250 27.7 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 826 842 885 5.0 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 77,821 83,334 89,702 7.6 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 23,667 29,948 36,268 21.1 7 Machinery and transport equipment 92,638 109,070 130,374 19.5 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 33,160 37,472 42,018 12.1 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 18,600 18,064 19,392 7.4 

 Total 278,104 314,880 362,419 15.1 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 

aIncludes 27 EU countries. 
A–54

TABLE A.26 Leading U.S. exports to the European Union,a by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 

Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 25,199 22,447 24,700 10.02710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 7,148 7,462 15,017 101.2 

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 10,789 9,767 9,470 –3.0 

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 6,866 6,620 8,892 34.3 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 2,789 3,894 6,304 61.9 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 2,216 3,610 5,615 55.5 

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 7,580 6,483 3,229 –50.2 

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 2,989 3,003 3,021 0.6 3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 2,081 2,296 2,368 3.2 3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 2,035 1,481 2,212 49.4 9018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 1,996 1,951 2,113 8.3 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 1,680 1,854 1,989 7.3 

7112.99 Waste and scrap of precious metals, other than of gold or platinum, n.e.s.o.i. 734 1,049 1,724 64.3 8411.99 Gas turbines parts, n.e.s.o.i. 1,583 1,412 1,656 17.3 8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine 

(diesel), cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 2,699 1,591 1,535 –3.5 

9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus n.e.s.o.i., and parts 1,481 1,425 1,374 –3.6 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 1,159 1,049 1,179 12.4 2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 168 276 1,178 327.1 

7112.92 Platinum waste and scrap, including metal clad with platinum but excluding sweepings 

containing other precious metals 468 853 1,082 26.9 

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by hand, framed or not framed 1,729 1,211 1,080 –10.8 8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 1,158 1,019 1,080 5.9 9021.90 Appliances n.e.s.o.i., worn, carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or 

disability; parts and accessories thereof 1,248 1,104 1,054 –4.5 

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous wood 841 1,075 1,048 –2.5 

2933.39 Heterocyclic compounds containing an unfused pyridine ring, whether or not hydrogenated, in 

the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 1,167 1,257 1,024 –18.5 

3001.90 Heparin and its salts; other human or animal substances prepared for therapeutic or 

prophylactic uses, n.e.s.o.i. 780 869 982 13.0 

 Total of items shown 88,584 85,057 100,927 18.7 

All other 113,808 132,272 140,162 6.0 

 Total of all commodities 202,392 217,329 241,089 10.9 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 

aIncludes 27 EU countries. 
A–55

TABLE A.27 Leading U.S. imports from the European Union,a by HTS subheading, 2009–11 

HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

2010–11

Millions of $ 

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 21,779 22,004 20,374 –7.4

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 10,153 11,106 15,791 42.2

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 8,709 13,986 15,399 10.1

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 7,900 10,382 12,634 21.7

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic 

compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 7,109 7,339 6,770 –7.7

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products, not light 3,432 5,228 6,043 15.6

2933.99 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only, n.e.s.o.i. 6,450 4,673 6,027 29.08411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 5,535 5,399 5,909 9.53002.90 Human blood; animal blood prepared for medical uses; toxins, cultures of microorganisms (excluding yeasts) and similar products n.e.s.o.i. 713 2,436 4,864 99.68802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 3,199 3,830 4,018 4.9

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 2,326 3,111 3,792 21.98803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 3,293 3,563 3,791 6.49701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by hand, framed or not framed 2,714 3,546 3,744 5.63004.39 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing hormones or derivatives/steroids used 

primarily as hormones, but not containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 2,123 2,938 3,414 16.2

2933.59 Heterocyclic compounds containing a pyrimidine (hydrogenated or not) or piperazine ring 

in the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 1,723 2,536 2,920 15.1

8411.12 Turbojets of a thrust exceeding 25 kN 2,157 2,350 2,602 10.73002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 2,316 2,274 2,576 13.32204.21 Wine n.e.s.o.i. of fresh grapes or fortified wine, in containers not over 2 liters 2,074 2,146 2,493 16.22844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds 2,851 3,042 2,285 –24.99021.39 Artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 1,802 2,349 2,263 –3.7

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 1,731 1,916 2,222 15.9

3004.31 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing insulin but not containing antibiotics 1,826 1,726 2,105 22.08486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic 

integrated circuits 546 909 2,009 121.0

3302.10 Mixtures of odoriferous substances and mixtures with a basis of these substances, used 

in the food or drink industries 1,788 1,828 1,832 0.2

2208.60 Vodka 1,291 1,467 1,666 13.6

 Total of items shown 105,540 122,082 137,542 12.7

All other 172,564 192,798 224,877 16.6

 Total of all commodities 278,104 314,880 362,419 15.1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 

aIncludes 27 EU countries. 
A–56 

TABLE A.28 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 13,979 15,077 17,021 12.91 Beverages and tobacco 1,051 1,161 1,312 13.02 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 4,866 6,418 7,637 19.03 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 9,299 11,542 16,630 44.14 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 516 569 511 –10.25 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 21,661 25,401 28,901 13.86 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 24,934 30,866 34,420 11.57 Machinery and transport equipment 70,175 86,730 96,568 11.38 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 18,187 20,026 21,431 7.09 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 7,027 8,165 9,344 14.4

 Total 171,695 205,956 233,774 13.5

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 14,283 15,794 17,424 10.31 Beverages and tobacco 679 780 845 8.32 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 7,703 10,474 11,732 12.03 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 63,640 82,107 102,892 25.34 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1,031 1,191 2,188 83.75 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 20,462 24,305 28,447 17.06 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 30,697 36,987 40,506 9.57 Machinery and transport equipment 60,267 75,800 82,899 9.48 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 11,431 12,664 13,200 4.29 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 14,392 15,435 16,263 5.4

 Total 224,584 275,536 316,397 14.8

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-57 

TABLE A.29 Leading U.S. exports to Canada, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8704.31 Motor vehicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engine, 

gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 4,665 6,513 6,359 –2.4 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 4,024 5,217 5,622 7.8 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 3,628 4,963 5,076 2.3 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 2,225 2,649 4,951 86.9 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,064 4,237 4,640 9.5 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 4,682 4,266 4,544 6.5 2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 2,466 2,810 3,685 31.1 2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products 741 1,895 3,544 87.0 

8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 2,138 3,257 3,029 –7.0 8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 1,580 2,349 2,468 5.13004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 1,740 1,975 2,330 18.0 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,348 1,750 2,060 17.7 7112.91 Gold waste and scrap, including metal clad with gold but excluding sweepings containing 

other precious metals 1,507 1,529 1,743 14.0 

8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 586 965 1,709 77.0 2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 1,620 1,374 1,459 6.2 8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 943 1,052 1,197 13.7 7606.12 Rectangular plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick, of aluminum alloy 767 1,032 1,174 13.7 8708.80 Suspension systems and parts thereof, including shock absorbers, for motor vehicles 681 1,003 1,151 14.8 8523.40 Optical media 1,197 1,276 1,141 –10.5 8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,079 1,310 1,120 –14.5 8716.10 Trailers and semi-trailers for housing or camping 668 1,060 1,056 –0.4 8708.30 Brakes and servo-brakes for motor vehicles, and parts thereof 795 985 973 –1.2 4902.90 Newspapers, etc., appearing less than 4 times per week 858 951 969 1.9 4901.99 Printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, other than in single sheets 947 991 950 –4.2 4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and 

racing cars 838 849 944 11.2 

 Total of items shown 44,785 56,258 63,893 13.6 

All other 126,910 149,697 169,881 13.5 

 Total of all commodities 171,695 205,956 233,774 13.5 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A–58 

TABLE A.30 Leading U.S. imports from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 36,972 48,236 65,436 35.7 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 16,594 24,822 25,474 2.6 

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 12,391 13,646 12,825 –6.0 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 6,164 10,919 12,609 15.5 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 5,166 7,824 8,645 10.5 

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products 3,726 5,343 6,535 22.3 

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 2,073 4,238 3,646 –14.0 

3104.20 Medicaments, for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, in measured doses, containing antibiotics 

other than penicillins 1,964 2,929 3,560 21.5 

4407.10 Coniferous wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, of thickness exceeding 6mm 1,987 2,685 2,658 –1.0 7601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 2,282 2,489 2,627 5.6

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,422 2,345 2,615 11.5 3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 3,547 2,800 2,503 –10.6 

8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 1,743 2,568 2,486 –3.2 

7601.20 Unwrought aluminum alloys 1,235 2,044 2,346 14.8 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,316 1,862 2,195 17.9 

2711.12 Propane, liquefied 1,424 1,704 2,156 26.5 

2716.00 Electrical energy 2,071 2,071 2,096 1.2 

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or 

bleached, coniferous wood 1,224 1,793 1,836 2.4 

3901.90 Polymers of ethylene n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 1,067 1,450 1,832 26.4 

2713.20 Petroleum bitumen 435 1,056 1,732 64.1 

4802.61 Uncoated paper/paperboard for writing/printing/other graphic purposes n.e.s.o.i., over 10 

percent fiber by mechanical process, in rolls 2,093 1,713 1,639 –4.3 

7118.90 Coin, of gold or used as legal tender 798 1,112 1,589 42.9 

4801.00 Newsprint, in rolls or sheets 1,395 1,348 1,450 7.6 

8802.30 Airplanes and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 kg 791 1,085 1,425 31.3 

7106.91 Silver, other than powder, unwrought 371 1,008 1,382 37.1 

 Total of items shown 110,249 149,087 173,299 16.2 

All other 114,335 126,449 143,097 13.2 

 Total of all commodities 224,584 275,536 316,397 14.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-59 

TABLE A.31 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 2,446 3,184 4,895 53.7 1 Beverages and tobacco 158 196 191 –2.5 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 20,917 27,282 31,921 17.0 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 524 1,333 2,008 50.7 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 70 430 188 –56.2 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 9,908 12,416 14,030 13.0 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,981 4,790 4,953 3.4 7 Machinery and transport equipment 22,162 29,292 31,702 8.2 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 4,368 5,516 5,961 8.1 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 590 1,306 1,048 –19.7 

 Total 65,124 85,746 96,898 13.0 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 4,143 4,868 5,594 14.9 1 Beverages and tobacco 33 31 34 11.6 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,224 1,584 1,979 24.9 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 303 490 348 –29.1 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 48 48 50 3.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 8,519 10,713 13,858 29.4 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 31,967 37,561 42,202 12.4 7 Machinery and transport equipment 139,029 180,191 201,734 12.0 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 106,528 124,625 128,491 3.1 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 3,751 3,936 4,177 6.1 

 Total 295,545 364,047 398,467 9.5 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A–60 

TABLE A.32 Leading U.S. exports to China, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 9,211 10,821 10,452 –3.48800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 5,304 5,705 6,322 10.8

7404.00 Copper waste and scrap 1,310 2,359 3,454 46.48703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating 

piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 357 1,657 2,912 75.7

7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 1,256 2,025 2,731 34.95201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 824 2,064 2,562 24.18542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 2,865 3,662 2,188 –40.37204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 1,521 960 1,588 65.48703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating 

piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 445 1,076 1,562 45.2

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or 

paperboard 541 735 1,086 47.7

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 52 288 850 195.32701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 118 572 828 44.84403.20 Coniferous wood in the rough, not treated 98 411 825 100.64703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or 

bleached, coniferous wood 415 545 782 43.4

3207.30 Liquid lustres and similar preparations 92 444 770 73.32804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 490 910 707 –22.32603.00 Copper ores and concentrates 297 593 687 15.78408.90 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel 

engines), n.e.s.o.i. 213 375 678 81.0

4101.50 Whole raw bovine or equine hides and skins, weight exceeding 16 kilograms, fresh, 

pickled or preserved but not tanned or further prepared 445 471 618 31.2

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic 

integrated circuits 147 714 565 –20.9

4707.30 Recovered (waste and scrap) paper or paperboard, mainly of mechanical pulp (for 

example, newspapers, journals and similar printed matter) 283 447 561 25.4

8486.10 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers 118 611 523 –14.48704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 177 173 497 187.12713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 98 255 471 84.25502.00 Artificial filament tow 326 367 460 25.4

 Total of items shown 27,002 38,242 44,679 16.8

All other 38,122 47,504 52,219 9.9

 Total of all commodities 65,124 85,746 96,898 13.0

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”
A-61 

TABLE A.33 Leading U.S. imports from China, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

8471.30 Portable digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at least a CPU, 

keyboard and display 22,909 32,043 39,336 22.8

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 13,055 16,865 22,916 35.99503.00 Tricycles, scooters, similar wheeled toys; dolls, doll’s carriages, and other toys; puzzles; reduced scale 

models 8,141 9,775 9,401 –3.8

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 5,480 8,421 9,319 10.7

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 7,679 9,937 8,780 –11.66403.99 Footwear not covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber or plastics or composition leather and 

uppers of leather 4,284 4,721 4,399 –6.8

9504.10 Video games used with television receiver and parts and accessories 7,032 6,492 4,382 –32.58443.31 Machines that perform two or more of the functions of printing, copying, facsimile transmission, able to 

connect to a computer or network 2,883 3,774 4,018 6.5

8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 5,057 5,132 4,012 –21.86402.99 Footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics n.e.s.o.i. 3,235 3,626 3,697 2.08471.70 Automatic data processing storage units 2,365 3,104 3,614 16.4

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 2,539 3,345 3,519 5.28504.40 Static converters 2,616 3,334 3,475 4.2

8528.51 Monitors, other than cathode-ray tube, designed for use with automatic data processing machines 3,470 3,975 3,452 –13.16110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 2,780 3,363 3,408 1.38471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 2,932 3,744 3,373 –9.98541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 636 1,570 3,365 114.38543.70 Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 1,156 2,274 3,349 47.38525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 3,390 3,827 3,069 –19.84202.92 Trunks, cases, bags and similar containers, with outer surface of plastic sheeting or of textile materials 2,040 2,690 2,893 7.5

6403.91 Footwear covering the ankles, with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics, excluding waterproof 

footwear 1,899 2,264 2,486 9.8

9403.60 Wooden furniture, other than of a kind used in the bedroom 1,981 2,409 2,311 –4.19504.90 Game machines except coin-operated; board games; mah-jong; dominoes; dice 2,816 2,319 2,309 –0.49403.20 Metal furniture, other than of a kind used in offices 1,711 2,094 2,299 9.88517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 1,626 2,591 2,161 –16.6

 Total of items shown 113,712 143,690 155,343 8.1

All other 181,833 220,357 243,124 10.3

 Total of all commodities 295,545 364,047 398,467 9.5

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-62 

TABLE A.34 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 9,240 10,357 13,566 31.0 1 Beverages and tobacco 281 314 350 11.2 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 4,491 5,489 6,987 27.3 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 7,668 14,149 23,286 64.6 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 639 819 972 18.7 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 16,546 19,260 22,576 17.2 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 15,637 19,386 22,657 16.9 7 Machinery and transport equipment 37,863 46,292 52,691 13.8 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 9,310 10,230 10,614 3.8 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 4,042 5,306 6,210 17.0 

Total 105,718 131,602 159,910 21.5 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 9,800 11,786 14,017 18.9 1 Beverages and tobacco 2,357 2,566 2,730 6.4 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 967 1,447 1,870 29.3 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 24,196 33,086 44,484 34.4 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 50 51 71 39.6 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,397 4,031 4,836 20.0 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 11,509 14,785 18,994 28.5 7 Machinery and transport equipment 95,220 127,754 138,733 8.6 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 18,275 22,308 24,460 9.6 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 10,539 11,009 12,476 13.3 

 Total 176,309 228,824 262,671 14.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A–63 

TABLE A.35 Leading U.S. exports to Mexico, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 3,996 7,297 13,507 85.1 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products, not light 2,324 4,071 5,826 43.1 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,155 2,792 4,751 70.2 

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 1,385 1,568 2,658 69.6 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,296 2,322 1,940 –16.5 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark–ignition internal–combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 1,027 1,514 1,841 21.6 

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 324 1,039 1,748 68.3 

8408.20 Compression–ignition internal–combustion piston engines 712 1,214 1,682 38.6 

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 1,350 1,494 1,651 10.5 

2902.43 Para–xylene 903 1,019 1,516 48.8 

3926.90 Articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914, n.e.s.o.i. 1,109 1,402 1,458 4.0 

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 848 1,253 1,421 13.4

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 1,151 1,243 1,408 13.2 

8538.90 Parts for electrical apparatus for electrical circuits; for electrical control n.e.s.o.i. 910 1,198 1,264 5.5 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark–ignition internal–combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 646 1,090 1,183 8.6 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching/routing apparatus 699 1,032 1,079 4.5 

7326.90 Articles of iron or steel n.e.s.o.i. 787 984 1,077 9.5 

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 481 572 1,035 81.0 

2711.12 Propane, liquefied 400 684 971 41.9 

8536.90 Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 705 814 887 9.0 

8544.49 Insulated electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 80 volts, not fitted with 

connectors, n.e.s.o.i. 608 808 883 9.3 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,215 1,068 858 –19.7 

3901.20 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms 648 748 845 12.9 3902.10 Polypropylene, in primary forms 562 729 840 15.3 7606.12 Rectangular plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick, of aluminum alloy 609 656 817 24.5 

 Total of items shown 26,848 38,610 53,145 37.6 

All other 78,870 92,992 106,765 14.8 

 Total of all commodities 105,718 131,602 159,910 21.5 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-64 

TABLE A.36 Leading U.S. imports from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 20,962 29,152 40,165 37.8 8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 12,940 13,397 11,973 –10.6 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 7,974 12,115 11,415 –5.8 

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 5,536 9,252 10,503 13.5 8704.31 Motor vehicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston 

engine, gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 4,939 7,307 7,494 2.6 

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 2,881 3,984 5,543 39.1 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching/routing apparatus 2,763 4,691 5,234 11.6

8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets of a kind used in vehicles, aircraft or 

ships 2,461 3,768 4,735 25.7 

8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 2,043 2,867 4,074 42.1 9401.90 Parts of seats (except medical, barbers, dentist, etc.) 1,966 3,480 3,917 12.5 8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 6,822 6,491 3,734 –42.5 7106.91 Silver, other than powder, unwrought 1,090 1,973 3,433 74.0 9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 2,099 2,512 2,680 6.7 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,484 2,296 2,680 16.7 8704.22 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with compression-ignition internal 

combustion piston engine, weighing 5 to 20 metric tons 906 1,861 2,568 38.0 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,322 2,017 2,531 25.5 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,276 1,365 2,488 82.3 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 2,049 2,288 2,445 6.9 

8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, other components incorporating apparatus for control or 

distribution of electricity, for voltage not exceeding 1,000 volts 1,550 2,102 2,328 10.7 

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display 

device 1,676 1,563 2,211 41.5 

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors 1,646 1,894 2,168 14.5 8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 912 1,669 1,907 14.3 8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,092 1,687 1,906 13.0 0702.00 Tomatoes, fresh or chilled 1,126 1,487 1,808 21.5 8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 724 926 1,775 91.6 

 Total of items shown 90,236 122,143 141,718 16.0 

All other 86,072 106,681 120,953 13.4  Total of all commodities 176,309 228,824 262,671 14.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-65 

TABLE A.37 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 10,123 10,792 13,106 21.4 1 Beverages and tobacco 606 576 690 20.0 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,962 3,859 4,160 7.8 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 876 1,806 2,517 39.3 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 69 62 54 –13.6 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 8,390 11,082 11,967 8.0 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 2,330 2,906 3,349 15.2 7 Machinery and transport equipment 13,632 14,640 15,612 6.6 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 6,847 8,138 8,767 7.7 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,240 1,865 1,188 –36.3 

 Total 47,074 55,727 61,409 10.2 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 558 569 604 6.1 1 Beverages and tobacco 64 76 80 4.0 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 421 509 575 13.0 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 274 480 484 0.9 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 31 35 38 6.5 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 7,739 8,983 9,050 0.7 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 6,617 8,626 10,018 16.1 7 Machinery and transport equipment 69,062 87,683 93,552 6.7 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 8,116 9,612 10,427 8.5 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 3,120 3,364 3,076 –8.6 

 Total 96,002 119,938 127,901 6.6 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-66 

TABLE A.38 Leading U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 4,089 4,214 4,024 –4.51005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 2,825 3,024 3,830 26.73004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail 

sale, n.e.s.o.i. 1,185 1,582 2,079 31.4

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 793 794 1,371 72.72701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 128 456 1,199 163.10203.19 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i, fresh or chilled 747 776 976 25.81201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 1,101 1,127 954 –15.49018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 668 719 794 10.5

0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 621 678 791 16.89018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and 

accessories thereof 536 741 785 5.9

2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 717 635 690 8.62909.19 Acyclic ethers, excluding diethyl ether, and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated, 

or nitrosated derivatives 76 641 634 –1.2

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 220 497 628 26.42844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds 650 716 615 –14.18803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 736 637 594 –6.78486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or 

electronic integrated circuits 287 512 535 4.4

3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 542 515 504 –2.11214.90 Rutabagas (swedes), mangolds, fodder roots, hay, clover, kale, vetches, and other 

forage products, n.e.s.o.i., whether or not in pellet form 442 446 503 12.7

9021.39 Artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 273 480 492 2.5

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, 

images or other data, including switching/routing apparatus 299 299 467 56.3

0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 238 335 461 37.77113.19 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal (excluding silver) 103 272 429 57.8

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 181 230 404 75.12402.20 Cigarettes containing tobacco 345 311 362 16.54403.20 Coniferous wood in the rough, not treated 286 296 337 13.6

 Total of items shown 18,089 20,934 24,460 16.8

All other 28,985 34,793 36,949 6.2

 Total of all commodities 47,074 55,727 61,409 10.2

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-67 

TABLE A.39 Leading U.S. imports from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 12,787 17,196 17,343 0.9

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 9,064 13,283 11,655 –12.3

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 3,897 3,969 4,108 3.58486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic 

integrated circuits 1,113 1,766 2,618 48.2

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 1,983 2,068 2,553 23.48708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,703 2,382 2,493 4.78525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 2,151 2,363 2,110 –10.78708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 1,127 1,625 2,013 23.88703.22 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine over 1,000 but over 1,500 cc 2,751 2,182 1,941 –11.0

8429.52 Self-propelled mechanical shovels and excavators, with a 360-degree revolving 

superstructure 344 634 1,571 147.9

8411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 824 874 1,149 31.52933.79 Lactams, excluding 6-hexanelactam, clobazam, and methyprylon 929 880 1,102 25.38486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of 

semiconductors, flat panels, or electronic integrated circuits 479 867 1,000 15.4

8408.90 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel 

engines), n.e.s.o.i. 349 655 937 43.1

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons 

and racing cars 678 922 917 –0.6

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting 

diodes 535 753 891 18.5

8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 667 879 881 0.33818.00 Chemical elements doped for use in electronics, in the form of discs, wafers, similar 

forms; chemical compounds doped for use in electronics 645 786 843 7.3

9102.11 Wrist watches, with battery, mechanical display, of base metal 486 671 842 25.63004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 1,376 1,411 841 –40.4

8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 576 829 822 -0.89002.11 Objective lenses and parts and accessories thereof for cameras, projectors or 

photographic enlargers or reducers 495 650 692 6.5

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 528 860 690 –19.78457.10 Machining centers for working metal 260 383 679 77.38481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 467 619 678 9.6

Total of items shown 46,214 59,507 61,371 3.1

All other 49,788 60,431 66,530 10.1

 Total of all commodities 96,002 119,938 127,901 6.6

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-68 

TABLE A.40 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011

% change, 

2010–11

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 3,331 4,461 5,973 33.91 Beverages and tobacco 49 53 57 8.02 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,929 3,553 4,473 25.93 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,169 1,517 2,575 69.74 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 98 89 74 –17.45 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 4,376 5,982 6,418 7.36 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,408 1,906 2,303 20.87 Machinery and transport equipment 10,463 14,390 14,936 3.88 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,665 3,857 3,773 –2.29 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 586 1,028 729 –29.1

 Total 27,074 36,836 41,311 12.1

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 290 334 381 13.91 Beverages and tobacco 76 81 84 3.82 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 234 376 509 35.33 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,101 1,659 2,198 32.54 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 2 3 2 –40.85 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,583 2,172 2,734 25.96 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 4,035 5,909 7,887 33.57 Machinery and transport equipment 28,718 34,078 38,605 13.38 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,944 2,299 2,710 17.99 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 785 1,003 897 –10.6

 Total 38,770 47,914 56,006 16.9

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-69 

TABLE A.41 Leading U.S. exports to Korea, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011

% change, 

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 1,345 1,579 1,855 17.51005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 1,116 1,422 1,845 29.88486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 720 1,986 1,487 –25.2

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 393 645 1,289 99.77204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 813 882 1,131 28.22701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 187 424 1,020 140.78542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 206 235 964 309.82707.30 Xylenes 257 379 511 34.78486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of semiconductors, 

flat panels, or electronic integrated circuits 336 350 477 36.5

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 271 345 466 35.28541.29 Transistors, other than photosensitive, with a dissipation rate greater than or equal to 1 watt 1,207 922 449 –51.32926.10 Acrylonitrile 314 484 424 –12.5

5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 85 158 394 149.98431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 351 720 368 –48.90202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 95 212 368 73.80203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 135 121 346 186.53004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 197 246 344 40.12707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar products with 

predominate aromatic constituent 305 305 340 11.5

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 363 449 338 –24.88708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 45 135 318 135.68542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 312 377 314 –16.77602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 187 215 294 36.69306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, etc., and parts 151 342 273 –20.21201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 277 312 267 –14.59031.41 Optical instruments for inspecting semiconductor wafers or devices, or photomasks or reticles 

used in manufacturing these items 58 172 262 52.1

 Total of items shown 9,729 13,417 16,144 20.3

All other 17,345 23,420 25,167 7.5

 Total of all commodities 27,074 36,836 41,311 12.1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-70 

TABLE A.42 Leading U.S. imports from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 8,178 7,490 7,617 1.7 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 5,212 5,625 7,617 35.4 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,015 1,535 1,990 29.6 2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 701 1,185 1,584 33.7 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,420 2,629 1,522 –42.1 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,257 1,308 1,375 5.1 

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and 

racing cars 480 949 1,180 24.4 

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors 589 863 948 9.8 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 382 731 915 25.1 7306.29 Seamed or welded iron or steel casing or tubing, of non-circular cross section, of kind used 

in drilling for oil or gas, not stainless 134 485 676 39.3 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 154 353 544 54.0 8471.30 Portable digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at least a 

CPU, keyboard and display 14 164 543 231.0 

2902.20 Benzene 234 424 540 27.6 8451.29 Drying machines for textile yarns, fabrics, or made-up textile articles, with a dry linen 

capacity exceeding 10 kilograms 422 525 540 3.0 

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 764 838 538 –35.8 8450.20 Household- or laundry-type washing machines, with a dry linen capacity exceeding 10 

kilograms 524 644 537 –16.6 

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 320 389 459 18.0 8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 10 116 434 273.6 7306.19 Seamed (o/than welded stainless steel) pipe, w/ext. diam 406.4mm or less or o/than circ. 

x-sect, line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines 123 190 417 119.8 

8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 386 401 384 –4.1 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 268 336 360 7.2 8523.51 Solid state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 213 226 329 45.8 8504.23 Liquid dielectric transformers having a power handling capacity exceeding 10,000 kva 327 415 326 –21.4 2707.10 Benzene 53 64 296 360.3 8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 95 225 288 28.3 

Total of items shown 23,276 28,110 31,961 13.7 

All other 15,494 19,804 24,045 21.4 

Total of all commodities 38,770 47,914 56,006 16.9 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-71 

TABLE A.43 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 246 374 304 –18.6 1 Beverages and tobacco 6 8 13 62.1 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 464 697 1,185 70.0 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,894 4,188 6,325 51.0 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 11 15 11 –28.8 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 5,422 7,342 9,274 26.3 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,181 1,704 1,766 3.6 7 Machinery and transport equipment 10,809 13,045 15,347 17.6 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,582 2,012 2,203 9.5 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 520 773 847 9.6 

 Total 22,135 30,157 37,275 23.6 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 1,984 2,432 3,563 46.5 1 Beverages and tobacco 323 324 295 –8.9 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,269 1,942 2,045 5.3 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 6,183 7,171 9,156 27.7 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 23 40 53 33.2 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,458 2,092 2,676 27.9 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,268 4,080 6,191 51.7 7 Machinery and transport equipment 3,242 3,462 4,342 25.4 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 930 907 812 –10.4 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 934 953 1,235 29.6 

 Total 19,612 23,402 30,368 29.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-72 

TABLE A.44 Leading U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 4,066 3,978 4,822 21.2 2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 692 1,892 2,440 29.0 

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 895 1,228 1,713 39.5 

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 54 406 1,268 212.3 

2207.20 Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength 3 37 739 1900.6 

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 582 475 624 31.4 3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 381 509 615 20.7 

3105.40 Ammonium dihydrogenorthophosphate (monoammonium phosphate), mixtures thereof with 

diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 158 255 491 92.7 

2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent or higher 0 9 411 4447.2 

2815.12 Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), in aqueous solution (soda lye or liquid soda) 217 199 342 71.75201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 15 46 323 594.6 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 215 272 300 10.0 

8431.49 Parts and attachments for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders, and other 

grading, scraping machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 164 239 274 14.8 

2711.12 Propane, liquefied 51 225 269 19.8 

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 61 177 231 30.2 

2902.50 Styrene (vinylbenzene; phenylethylene) 108 196 222 13.0 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 148 164 211 28.9 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 148 184 209 13.6 2930.90 Organo-sulfur compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 188 198 206 4.2 

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 135 202 199 –1.3 3907.20 Polyethers, other than polyacetals, in primary forms 107 140 192 36.8 

2713.12 Petroleum coke, calcined 104 112 189 68.6 3906.90 Acrylic polymers, except for poly (methyl methacrylate), in primary forms 97 142 189 32.5 3808.91 Insecticides 98 152 187 23.0

3105.30 Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 35 60 181 202.2 

 Total of items shown 8,721 11,499 16,846 46.5 

All other 13,414 18,658 20,428 9.5 

 Total of all commodities 22,135 30,157 37,275 23.6 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-73 

TABLE A.45 Leading U.S. imports from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 4,661 5,188 6,498 25.3 0901.11 Coffee, not roasted, not decaffeinated 727 1,064 1,865 75.3 7207.12 Semifinished iron/nonalloy steel products, under 0.25 percent carbon, 

rectangular/not square, width not less than twice thickness 114 312 1,702 446.1 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products, not light 817 952 1,319 38.6 

7201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5 percent or less phosphorus by weight, in 

primary forms 478 650 1,130 73.8 

4703.29 Chemical woodpulp, soda, or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, 

semibleached or bleached, nonconiferous 508 912 911 –0.1 

2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent or 

higher 165 248 568 129.2 

8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines 190 331 472 42.7 6802.93 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of granite 281 412 447 8.6 8802.30 Airplanes and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 

kg 272 438 429 –2.1 

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 268 371 395 6.4 8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 393 206 365 76.8 

2711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, other than natural gas, in a 

gaseous state 156 222 282 26.7 

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station 

wagons and racing cars 212 278 278 0.1 

2401.20 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped 297 295 271 –8.2 1701.11 Cane sugar, raw, in solid form, not containing added flavoring or coloring matter 70 221 270 22.2 2711.14 Ethylene, propylene, butylene, and butadiene, liquefied 82 188 255 35.1 8429.20 Graders and levelers, self-propelled 74 141 249 75.9 2804.69 Silicon, containing by weight less than 99.99 percent of silicon 104 192 248 29.3 7202.93 Ferroniobium 75 201 244 21.6 2902.43 Para-xylene 127 176 231 31.4 8483.10 Transmission shafts (including camshafts and crankshafts) and cranks 72 141 209 48.7 2902.20 Benzene 173 261 192 –26.4 7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding 

powder 98 154 178 15.5 

8414.30 Compressors of a kind used in refrigerating equipment, including air 

conditioning 148 182 176 –3.1

 Total of items shown 10,559 13,737 19,186 39.7 

All other 9,053 9,665 11,182 15.7 

 Total of all commodities 19,612 23,402 30,368 29.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-74 

TABLE A.46 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011

% change, 

2010–11 

Millions of $

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 2,012 2,115 2,530 19.6 1 Beverages and tobacco 46 51 46 –10.1 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,042 2,707 3,284 21.3 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 113 138 117 –15.0 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 23 17 10 –40.5 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,791 4,091 4,648 13.6 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 859 1,122 1,334 18.9 7 Machinery and transport equipment 6,858 10,402 9,067 –12.8 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,612 2,501 2,235 –10.6 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 356 759 503 –33.8 

 Total 16,712 23,904 23,775 –0.5 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 272 279 331 18.8 1 Beverages and tobacco 9 15 18 21.7 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 191 256 284 11.1 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 153 150 158 5.2 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 10 13 14 8.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 954 1,308 1,497 14.5 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,803 5,155 6,079 17.9 7 Machinery and transport equipment 17,722 21,997 25,989 18.1 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 4,135 4,955 5,268 6.3 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 825 1,441 1,574 9.2 

 Total 28,074 35,568 41,213 15.9 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-75 

TABLE A.47 Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 1,160 2,492 1,371 –45.0

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 895 892 1,344 50.8 7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 431 715 1,339 87.3 1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 727 613 807 31.6 1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 719 653 704 7.7 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 575 1,056 600 –43.2 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 359 572 569 –0.6 9031.41 Optical instruments for inspecting semiconductor wafers or devices, or photomasks or reticles 

used in manufacturing these items 281 526 443 –15.7 

8486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of semiconductors, 

flat panels, or electronic integrated circuits 263 578 422 –27.1 

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 729 592 412 –30.4 1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 241 231 398 72.6 8475.90 Parts of machines for assembling electric/electronic lamps, tubes or flashbulbs, in glass 

envelopes, for manufacturing or hot working glass 223 223 393 75.8 

7204.21 Waste and scrap, of stainless steel 226 349 268 –23.4 7106.10 Silver powder 112 180 264 46.5 

2902.44 Mixed xylene isomers 49 186 253 36.4 2933.71 6-Hexanelactam (epsilon-caprolactam) 31 133 231 74.2 3908.10 Polyamide-6,-11,-12,-6,6,-6,9,-6,10 or -6,12 (nylon type), in primary forms 79 148 223 51.1 3824.90 Other chemical products and preparations of the chemical and allied industries, n.e.s.o.i. 115 182 203 11.42804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 109 181 197 8.8 3207.30 Liquid lustres and similar preparations 41 125 193 54.7 5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 103 190 175 –7.6 2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds 91 164 163 –0.3 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 175 194 161 –17.2 8462.99 Machine tools (including presses) for working metal by forging, hammering, die-casting, 

bending, folding, flattening, working metal carbides, n.e.s.o.i. 83 131 155 18.4 

9001.90 Lenses, except contact and spectacle, prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, unmounted, 

other than of glass not optically worked 136 261 147 –43.7 

 Total of items shown 7,953 11,567 11,434 –1.1 

All other 8,759 12,337 12,340 0.0 

 Total of all commodities 16,712 23,904 23,775 –0.5 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-76 

TABLE A.48 Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 2,179 4,246 6,609 55.7 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,155 1,541 1,426 –7.4 8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,271 1,248 1,139 –8.8 8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 771 895 1,072 19.7 8526.91 Radio navigational aid apparatus 2,102 1,294 978 –24.4 8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 796 994 956 –3.8 8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 695 882 874 –0.9 8471.30 Portable digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at least a CPU, keyboard 

and display 103 131 773 488.2 

8523.51 Solid state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 282 480 579 20.6 7318.15 Threaded screws and bolts, of iron or steel, n.e.s.o.i., whether or not with their nuts or washers 299 417 513 23.1 8512.20 Electrical lighting or visual signaling equipment, for use on cycles or motor vehicles, except for use on 

bicycles 325 374 426 13.8 

8712.00 Bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorized 304 346 411 18.7 8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 166 300 401 33.7 8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 333 351 399 13.6 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 266 414 391 –5.8 

7318.14 Self-tapping screws of iron or steel 267 362 388 7.3 8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 181 290 365 25.6 8504.40 Static converters 239 301 355 17.9 8534.00 Printed circuits 247 329 353 7.3 8523.40 Optical media 433 361 322 –10.9 9506.91 Gymnasium, playground or other exercise articles and equipment; parts and accessories thereof 213 318 312 –1.9 7318.16 Nuts, threaded, of iron or steel 150 240 311 29.9 8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 216 270 302 12.0 8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units 114 168 269 60.0 

8471.80 Other units of automated data processing machines 194 275 257 –6.4 

 Total of items shown 13,300 16,829 20,183 19.9 

All other 14,775 18,740 21,031 12.2 

 Total of all commodities 28,074 35,568 41,213 15.9 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-77 

TABLE A.49 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 403 475 554 16.61 Beverages and tobacco 3 5 5 10.62 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,045 1,136 1,550 36.43 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 959 1,093 1,848 69.14 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 123 154 10 –93.35 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,182 3,737 4,357 16.66 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,201 1,829 1,785 –2.47 Machinery and transport equipment 5,636 5,125 5,074 –1.08 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,117 1,296 1,344 3.79 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 961 1,544 1,141 –26.1

 Total 14,629 16,394 17,670 7.8

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 917 1,186 1,720 45.11 Beverages and tobacco 37 31 33 7.52 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 380 562 1,363 142.43 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 435 2,324 3,130 34.74 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 57 97 133 37.05 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,647 4,954 6,215 25.46 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 7,300 10,465 12,342 17.97 Machinery and transport equipment 2,819 3,738 4,224 13.08 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 5,334 5,938 6,425 8.29 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 301 320 418 30.8

 Total 21,228 29,614 36,003 21.6

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-78 

TABLE A.50 Leading U.S. exports to India, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

3105.30 Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 1,034 1,079 1,237 14.7 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 346 462 917 98.7 7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding 

powder 643 1,179 769 –34.8 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 2,139 1,156 620 –46.3 

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 477 825 577 –30.0 2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar 

products with predominate aromatic constituent 418 407 537 31.8 

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 259 254 416 63.8 2809.20 Phosphoric acid and polyphosphoric acids 97 153 272 77.6 0802.11 Almonds, fresh or dried, in shell 139 196 256 30.8 8411.82 Gas turbines, except turbojets and turbopropellers, of a power not exceeding 5,000 

kW 177 271 209 –22.7 

4801.00 Newsprint, in rolls or sheets 20 135 186 38.3 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, 

images or other data, including switching/routing apparatus 199 188 178 –5.3 

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or 

paperboard 95 126 150 18.7 

3815.19 Supported catalysts, n.e.s.o.i. 107 109 145 32.5 2711.11 Natural gas, liquefied 0 23 135 494.0 8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting 

diodes 56 53 125 135.8 

3904.10 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 96 122 113 –7.48430.49 Boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i., other than self-propelled 42 22 112 415.2 8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines 68 99 112 13.9 8411.99 Gas turbine parts, n.e.s.o.i. 102 148 109 –26.1 9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 80 106 109 2.3 

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 64 38 107 178.2 8431.49 Parts and attachments for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders, and 

other grading, scraping machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 48 31 103 230.4 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products, not light 86 94 94 –0.7 

5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 104 69 93 35.1 

 Total of items shown 6,897 7,345 7,683 4.6 

All other 7,732 9,049 9,987 10.4

 Total of all commodities 14,629 16,394 17,670 7.8 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-79 

TABLE A.51 Leading U.S. imports from India, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 3,084 5,166 6,263 21.22710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products 303 2,102 2,694 28.2

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 1,202 1,840 2,465 34.0

7113.19 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal (excluding silver) 1,077 1,138 1,127 –0.9

1302.32 Mucilages and thickeners, whether or not modified, derived from locust beans, locust bean 

seeds or guar seeds 92 221 914 313.8

6302.31 Bed linen, other than printed, of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 392 584 635 8.86302.60 Toilet and kitchen linen, of terry toweling or similar terry fabrics, of cotton 389 465 532 14.40306.13 Shrimps and prawns, including in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, frozen 141 285 489 71.42710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 108 202 425 110.0

6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, 

of cotton 332 395 399 0.9

3004.20 Lead oxides, n.e.s.o.i. 234 256 361 41.37113.11 Jewelry and parts thereof, of silver, whether or not plated or clad with other precious metal 215 291 343 17.70801.32 Cashew nuts, fresh or dried, shelled 169 184 307 66.68528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display 

device 240 327 282 –13.7

6205.20 Men’s or boys’ shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 174 207 250 20.66206.30 Women’s or girls’ blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses, of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 261 313 241 –22.98708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 126 203 237 16.86109.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, of cotton, knitted or crocheted 163 202 233 15.86105.10 Men’s or boys’ shirts, of cotton, knitted or crocheted 199 210 214 1.92933.99 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only, n.e.s.o.i. 51 67 213 215.58701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 106 180 199 10.17304.29 Casing and tubing, of circular cross section, of a kind used in drilling for oil or gas, of iron 

(except cast iron) or steel 35 130 192 48.0

6204.42 Women’s or girls’ dresses of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 153 176 175 –0.98409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines 96 114 173 52.08481.90 Parts of taps, cocks, valves, and similar items for pipes, vats or the like, including pressure 

reducing, thermostatically controlled valves 96 115 170 48.2

 Total of items shown 9,437 15,373 19,533 27.1

All other 11,790 14,241 16,471 15.7

 Total of all commodities 21,228 29,614 36,003 21.6

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-80 

TABLE A.52 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2009–11 SITC code no. Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 1,307 1,067 1,164 9.11 Beverages and tobacco 54 52 53 1.12 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 166 186 176 –5.13 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 31 47 45 –4.24 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1 1 1 –22.75 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 560 911 951 4.46 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 258 302 383 27.07 Machinery and transport equipment 2,448 2,647 4,276 61.68 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 321 414 560 35.29 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 16 29 27 –6.1

 Total 5,160 5,657 7,637 35.0

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 307 285 282 –0.81 Beverages and tobacco 146 142 90 –36.72 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 119 270 244 –9.73 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 11,947 17,319 23,869 37.84 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes (a) (a) (a) –25.9

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,650 2,563 3,139 22.46 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 2,654 3,945 5,098 29.27 Machinery and transport equipment 216 282 350 24.08 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 301 353 503 42.49 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 80 39 34 –12.1

 Total 17,420 25,199 33,610 33.4

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 

aU.S. value less than $500,000. 
A-81 

TABLE A.53 Leading U.S. exports to Russia, by Schedule B subheading, 2009–11 Schedule B subheading Description 2009 2010 2011 

% change, 

2010–11 

Millions of $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 418 243 674 177.1 8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 251 206 316 53.2 0207.14 Chicken cuts and edible offal, including livers, frozen 744 315 243 –22.98703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating 

piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 10 78 231 198.4 

3904.10 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 27 154 215 39.8 0202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 13 92 183 99.7 0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 134 95 130 37.1 8411.82 Gas turbines, except turbojets and turbopropellers, of a power not exceeding 

5,000 kW 77 70 118 68.1 

8701.30 Track-laying tractors 9 56 113 101.6 8430.41 Boring or sinking machinery, self-propelled, n.e.s.o.i. 17 49 113 127.6 8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 36 83 100 20.9 8429.52 Self-propelled mechanical shovels and excavators, with a 360-degree revolving 

superstructure 4 21 87 309.8 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating 

piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 24 39 81 108.4 

0802.12 Almonds, fresh or dried, shelled 35 55 74 34.9 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 5 12 72 516.4 0102.10 Bovine animals, live, purebred breeding 3 9 71 708.0 8479.89 Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 54 58 70 21.8 8431.49 Parts and attachments for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders, 

and other grading, scraping machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 102 49 66 34.9

0203.22 Meat of swine, specifically hams, shoulders and cuts thereof, with bone in, 

frozen 28 51 59 13.8 

5502.00 Artificial filament tow 53 67 56 –17.2 

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and 

parts, n.e.s.o.i. 28 38 54 43.9 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1 9 53 504.7 3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 13 52 52 –0.8 

3912.11 Cellulose acetates, nonplasticized, in primary forms 54 54 52 –4.8 8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 41 25 51 102.2 

 Total of items shown 2,182 1,980 3,335 68.4 

All other 2,978 3,676 4,302 17.0 

 Total of all commodities 5,160 5,657 7,637 35.0 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 
A-82 

TABLE A.54 Leading U.S. imports from Russia, by HTS subheading, 2009–11 HTS subheading Description 2009 2010 2011

% change,

2010–11

Millions of $ 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products, not light 7,714 10,376 16,880 62.7

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 2,065 4,062 3,514 –13.52710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 965 1,286 1,401 9.0

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds 856 1,049 950 –9.57110.21 Palladium, unwrought or in powder form 200 241 765 217.37201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5 percent or less phosphorus by weight, in primary forms 275 447 596 33.32713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 407 405 560 38.53104.20 Medicaments, for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, in measured doses, containing 

antibiotics other than penicillins 104 358 555 55.1

7207.12 Semifinished iron/nonalloy steel products, under 0.25 percent carbon, rectangular/not 

square, width not less than twice thickness 187 480 525 9.4

2711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, other than natural gas, in a gaseous 

state 375 383 518 35.4

7502.10 Nickel, not alloyed, unwrought 294 685 510 –25.62814.10 Anhydrous ammonia 111 99 296 198.3

7601.20 Unwrought aluminum alloys 130 199 292 47.27601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 421 250 279 11.3

7408.11 Wire of refined copper, with a maximum cross sectional dimension over 6 millimeters 60 0 244 (a)

3105.40 Ammonium dihydrogenorthophosphate (monoammonium phosphate), mixtures thereof 

with diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 3 54 230 330.6

2901.21 Ethylene 40 237 215 –9.5

0306.14 Crabs, including in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, frozen 264 216 207 –4.12713.12 Petroleum coke, calcined 8 30 201 565.32711.13 Butanes, liquefied 56 82 201 143.87115.90 Articles n.e.s.o.i., of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal 72 147 180 22.1

3102.80 Mixtures or urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution 96 140 180 28.38108.90 Titanium and articles thereof, other than unwrought or in powder form or waste and 

scrap 171 211 146 –30.8

7202.21 Ferrosilicon, containing by weight more than 55 percent silicon 45 159 134 –15.32711.12 Propane, liquefied 92 84 134 59.2

Total of items shown 15,010 21,679 29,714 37.1

All other 2,410 3,520 3,896 10.7

Total of all commodities 17,420 25,199 33,610 33.4

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.” 

aNot applicable.