United States International Trade Commission

62ND REPORT

USITC Publication 4247

July 2011

THE YEAR IN 

TRADE 2010

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 of Economics

Sandra Rivera

Acting Director of Operations

Robert B. Koopman

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4247 July 2011

The Year in Trade 2010

Operation of the Trade Agreements Program

62nd Report
This report was principally prepared by the Office of Economics 

Project Leader 

Joanne Guth 

Deputy Project Leader

Justino De La Cruz 

Office of Economics 

Eric Cardenas, Dylan Carlson, 

William Greene, Nick Grossman, Alexander Hammer, Aimee Larsen, 

Walker Pollard, James Stamps, Samantha Warrington, and Edward C. Wilson 

Office of the General Counsel

William W. Gearhart 

Office of Industries

Tamar Asadurian, Katherine Linton, and Laura Rodriguez 

Office of Investigations

Steven Hudgens and Mary Messer 

Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements

Naomi Freeman and Daniel Shepherdson 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations

Anne Goalwin 

Primary Reviewer

Scott Baker 

Office of Information Technology Systems

Barbara V. Bobbitt 

Office of Economics Interns

Rebecca Brofft, Caitlyn Carrico, 

Carolyn Esko, and Nathanael Snow 

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 62nd 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 2010. 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 ......................................................................................................... xi 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... xv 

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

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

Overview of the U.S. economy in 2010 ...................................................................................... 1-1 

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

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

U.S. trade in goods in 2010 ........................................................................................................ 1-5 

U.S. merchandise trade by product category ....................................................................... 1-5 

Exports ............................................................................................................................ 1-5 

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

 U.S. imports under preferential trade programs and free trade agreements .......................... 1-6 

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

U.S. trade in services in 2010 ...................................................................................................... 1-7 

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

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

Imports ............................................................................................................................. 1-10 

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 ............................................................................................. 2-1 

Section 301 investigations .................................................................................................... 2-1 

Section 301 cases in 2010 ................................................................................................ 2-2

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

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and reviews ....................................... 2-5 

Antidumping duty investigations ..................................................................................... 2-5 

Countervailing duty investigations .................................................................................. 2-6 

Reviews of outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders/suspension 

agreements................................................................................................................... 2-7 

Section 337 investigations .................................................................................................... 2-8 

Trade adjustment assistance ........................................................................................................ 2-10 

Assistance for workers .......................................................................................................... 2-10 

Assistance for farmers ........................................................................................................... 2-11 

Assistance for firms .............................................................................................................. 2-12 

Assistance for communities ................................................................................................. 2-13 

Tariff preference programs .......................................................................................................... 2-14 

Generalized System of Preferences ....................................................................................... 2-14
vi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page 

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

African Growth and Opportunity Act ................................................................................... 2-15 

Andean Trade Preference Act ............................................................................................... 2-18 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act ............................................................................ 2-19 

Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act and Haiti 

Economic Lift Program .................................................................................................... 2-21 

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

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

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

Trade in agriculture ......................................................................................................... 3-2 

Nonagricultural market access ........................................................................................ 3-2 

Trade in services ............................................................................................................. 3-3 

Trade-related intellectual property rights ........................................................................ 3-4 

Trade remedy rules ........................................................................................................... 3-4 

Dispute Settlement Understanding ................................................................................... 3-5 

Trade facilitation ............................................................................................................. 3-5 

Trade and environment ................................................................................................... 3-6

Special and differential treatment .................................................................................... 3-6 

General Council ................................................................................................................... 3-7 

Work programs, decisions, and reviews .......................................................................... 3-7 

 Selected plurilateral agreements ........................................................................................... 3-11 

Agreement on Government Procurement ......................................................................... 3-11 

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products .......................... 3-11 

Dispute Settlement Body ...................................................................................................... 3-12 

New requests for consultations and new panels established ............................................ 3-14 

 Panel and Appellate Body reports issued and/or adopted during 2010 that involve the 

 United States .......................................................................................................... 3-17 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ..................................................... 3-21 

Ministerial council meeting .................................................................................................. 3-21 

Trade Committee .................................................................................................................. 3-22 

Export Credit Arrangement and Aircraft Sector Understanding ........................................... 3-23 

 Accessions ........................................................................................................................... 3-24 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ........................................................................................... 3-24 

The 2010 Bogor goal target, FTAAP, and related APEC commitments .............................. 3-25 

Regional economic integration ............................................................................................. 3-26 

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ................................................................................. 3-27

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

FTAs in force during 2010 .......................................................................................................... 4-1 

FTA developments during 2010 .................................................................................................. 4-4 

 Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement ...................... 4-4 

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement ................................................................................... 4-6 
vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page 

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

North American Free Trade Agreement ...................................................................................... 4-7

Free Trade Commission ........................................................................................................ 4-8 

Commission for Labor Cooperation ..................................................................................... 4-9 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation ....................................................................... 4-10 

Dispute settlement ................................................................................................................. 4-12 

Chapter 11 dispute settlement developments ................................................................... 4-12 

Chapter 19 dispute panel reviews .................................................................................... 4-12 

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 .................................................................................................................. 5-5 

Government procurement .................................................................................................... 5-6 

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

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

Intellectual property rights enforcement .............................................................................. 5-9 

Beef ...................................................................................................................................... 5-10 

Pork ...................................................................................................................................... 5-10 

Global trade imbalances and China’s exchange-rate regime ............................................... 5-11 

Mexico ........................................................................................................................................ 5-11 

Cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico ............................................ 5-12 

Japan ........................................................................................................................................... 5-13 

Economic cooperation initiatives ......................................................................................... 5-14 

Regulatory reforms .............................................................................................................. 5-15 

Beef ....................................................................................................................................... 5-16 

Automobiles ......................................................................................................................... 5-16 

Republic of Korea ...................................................................................................................... 5-17 

U.S.-Korea FTA ................................................................................................................... 5-18 

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

Taiwan ........................................................................................................................................ 5-19 

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

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

Cotton.................................................................................................................................... 5-23 

India ............................................................................................................................................ 5-24 

Agriculture ........................................................................................................................... 5-25 

Edible oil ......................................................................................................................... 5-25 

Cotton .............................................................................................................................. 5-25 

Pulses ............................................................................................................................... 5-26 

Trade and investment dialogue ............................................................................................ 5-26 

Intellectual property rights ................................................................................................... 5-27 
viii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page 

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

 Russia .......................................................................................................................................... 5-27 

WTO accession negotiations ................................................................................................ 5-29 

Trilateral U.S.-EU-Russia accession meetings ............................................................... 5-29 

Obama-Medvedev meeting ............................................................................................. 5-30 

Renewed WTO accession working party meetings ......................................................... 5-30 

U.S.-Russia bilateral trade issues ......................................................................................... 5-30 

Beef, pork, and poultry quotas ........................................................................................ 5-31 

Sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions ........................................................................... 5-31 

Intellectual property rights .............................................................................................. 5-33 

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

Figures

ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1992–2010 ............................................................ xv 

1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, in percentage change, 2000–10 ........................................ 1-2 

1.2 U.S. real gross domestic product, quarterly, in percentage change, 2009–10 ........................ 1-2 

1.3 Indices of dollar exchange rates for selected major currencies and broad measures, 

 monthly, 2010 ...................................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2008–10 .................................................................. 1-6 

1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2010 .................................................... 1-8 

1.6 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2010 .................................................... 1-9 

1.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2008–10 ......................................... 1-9 

1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2010 ......................................... 1-12 

1.9 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2010 .......................................... 1-12 

5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2006–10 ....................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2006–10 .................................................................. 5-1 

5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2006–10 ...................................................................... 5-4 

5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2006–10 ................................................................. 5-4 

5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2006–10 ........................................................................ 5-8 

5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2006–10 ................................................................... 5-8 

5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2006–10 ...................................................................... 5-11 

5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2006–10 ................................................................. 5-11 

5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2006–10 ......................................................................... 5-14 

5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2006–10 .................................................................... 5-14

5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2006–10 ........................................................................ 5-17 

5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2006–10 ................................................................... 5-17 

5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2006–10 ...................................................................... 5-20 

5.14 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2006–10 ................................................................. 5-20 

5.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2006–10 ........................................................................ 5-22

5.16 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2006–10 ................................................................... 5-22

5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2006–10 .......................................................................... 5-24 

5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2006–10 ..................................................................... 5-24 

5.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, 2006–10 ....................................................................... 5-28 
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page 

Tables

ES.1 Summary of 2010 trade agreement activities ......................................................................... xxv 

1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and with the world, 2010, 

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

1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2010, 

billions of dollars ................................................................................................................. 1-11 

2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2010 ................................................ 2-7

2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2010 .............................................. 2-7 

2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries and the world, 2010, 

millions of dollars ................................................................................................................ 2-16 

2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA countries, 2008–10 ............................................ 2-17 

2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2008–10 ............................................. 2-20 

2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2008–10 .......................................... 2-21 

3.1 WTO membership in 2010 ..................................................................................................... 3-9 

3.2 WTO observers in 2010 .......................................................................................................... 3-10 

3.3 WTO dispute-settlement panels established in 2010 .............................................................. 3-15 

3.4 WTO dispute-settlement panel and Appellate Body reports adopted in 2010 ....................... 3-18 

4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, total trade, 2008–10, millions of dollars ........... 4-2 

4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2008–10 ................................ 4-3 

4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2010 ........................................................................ 4-5 

4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with potential TPP partners, 2008–10 .............................................. 4-8 

4.5 Active files through 2010 under article 14 of the North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation ................................................................................................ 4-11 

4.6 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of the end of 2010 ......................... 4-13 

5.1 Russian tariff-rate quota quantities for meat and poultry, 2006–2010 

 (as of December 24, 2010) .................................................................................................. 5-32 

Appendix tables

A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ..................... A-3 

A.2 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2008–10 ......................................... A-4 

A.3 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2008–10 .................................... A-5 

A.4 Antidumping cases active in 2010, by USITC investigation number .................................... A-6 

A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010 .... A-7 

A.6 Countervailing duty cases active in 2010, by USITC investigation number .......................... A-13 

A.7 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2010 .............................................. A-14 

A.8 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders completed 

 in 2010, by date of completion .......................................................................................... A-16 

A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International 

Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on December 31, 2010 ..................... A-17 

A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2010 .................................... A-26 

A.11 U.S. imports for consumption and U.S. imports that were either GSP eligible 

or GSP duty free, by HTS provision, 2010, millions of dollars ........................................ A-30 

A.12 U.S. imports for consumption and U.S. imports that were either GSP eligible 

or GSP duty free, by HTS import categories, 2010, millions of dollars ............................ A-31 
x

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Appendix tables—Continued

A.13 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA provisions, by source, 2008–10 ....................... A-32 

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

provision, 2008–10 ............................................................................................................ A-33 

A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA provisions, by source, 2008–10 ........................ A-34 

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

provision, 2008–10 ............................................................................................................ A-35 

A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA provisions, by source, 2008–10 ..................... A-36 

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

provision, 2008–10 ............................................................................................................ A-37 

A.19 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments 

in 2010 ............................................................................................................................... A-38 

A.20 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations 

 of USITC and Commerce, developments in 2010 ............................................................. A-44 

A.21 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 .... A-45 

A.22 Leading U.S. exports to the European Union, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ............ A-46 

A.23 Leading U.S. imports from the European Union, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 .................. A-47 

A.24 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ......................... A-48 

A.25 Leading U.S. exports to Canada, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ................................. A-49 

A.26 Leading U.S. imports from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ...................................... A-50 

A.27 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ........................... A-51 

A.28 Leading U.S. exports to China, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ................................... A-52 

A.29 Leading U.S. imports from China, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ......................................... A-53 

A.30 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ........................ A-54 

A.31 Leading U.S. exports to Mexico, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ................................ A-55 

A.32 Leading U.S. imports from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ...................................... A-56 

A.33 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10............................ A-57 

A.34 Leading U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ................................... A-58 

A.35 Leading U.S. imports from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ......................................... A-59 

A.36 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ........................... A-60 

A.37 Leading U.S. exports to Korea, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ................................... A-61 

A.38 Leading U.S. imports from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ......................................... A-62 

A.39 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ......................... A-63 

A.40 Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ................................. A-64 

A.41 Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ...................................... A-65 

A.42 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ........................... A-66 

A.43 Leading U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 ................................... A-67 

A.44 Leading U.S. imports from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ......................................... A-68 

A.45 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 ............................ A-69 

A.46 Leading U.S. exports to India, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 .................................... A-70 

A.47 Leading U.S. imports from India, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 .......................................... A-71 

A.48 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10 .......................... A-72 

A.49 Leading U.S. exports to Russia, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10 .................................. A-73 

A.50 Leading U.S. imports from Russia, by HTS subheading, 2008–10 ........................................ A-74 
xi 

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACO Authorized Certificate of Origin 

ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

AD antidumping 

AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act 

AIT American Institute in Taiwan 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA) 

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

ASU Aircraft Sector Understanding (OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export 

Credits) 

ATAA Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 

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) 

BIAC Business and Industry Advisory Committee (OECD) 

BOP balance of payments 

BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

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

CANACAR Cámara Nacional del Autotransporte de Carga (Mexico) 

CBERA Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

CBI Caribbean Basin Initiative 

CBTPA Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act 

CEA Council of Economic Advisors 

CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA) 

CLC Commission for Labor Cooperation (NAFTA) 

CNL competitive need limitation 

COOL country of origin labeling 

CTD Committee on Trade and Development (WTO) 

CTI Committee on Trade and Investment (APEC) 

CVD countervailing duty 

DDA Doha Development Agenda (WTO) 

DSB Dispute Settlement Body (WTO) 

DSU Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO) 

DTAA Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance (USDOL) 

EC European Communities 

ECC Extraordinary Challenge Committee (NAFTA) 

EDA Economic Development Administration (USDOC) 

EIAP Earned Import Allowance Program (CAFTA-DR) 

EoDB ease of doing business (APEC) 

ERS Economic Research Service (USDA) 

ETA Employment and Training Administration (USDOL) 

EU European Union 

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA) 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (USDOT) 

FMRD Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue 
xii 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA) 

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) 

G8 Group of Eight (major world industrial economies) 

G20 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) 

GSP Generalized System of Preferences 

GTIS Global Trade Information System 

HCTC Health Coverage Tax Credit 

HELP Haiti Economic Lift Program 

HOPE Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act 

HS Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System 

HTS Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

ICSID International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes 

IIPA International Intellectual Property Alliance 

IMF International Monetary Fund 

IPR intellectual property rights 

IT information technology 

ITA International Trade Administration (USDOC) 

JCCT Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade 

LCIA London Court of International Arbitration 

LDBDC least-developed beneficiary developing country 

LTFV less than fair value 

MEA multilateral environmental agreement 

Mercosur Common Market of the South (Mercado Común del Sur) 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MRA mutual recognition agreement 

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 

NBER National Bureau of Economic Research 

NTM nontariff measure 

NTR normal trade relations 

OCR Out-of-Cycle Special 301 Review 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

OIE World Organization for Animal Health 

OTEXA Office of Textiles and Apparel (USDOC) 

PSAG Private Sector Advisory Group 

ROOs rules of origin 

RTA regional trade agreement 

SCM subsidies and countervailing measures 

S&D special and differential treatment 

S&ED Strategic and Economic Dialogue 
xiii 

SITC Standard Industrial Trade Classification 

SLA Softwood Lumber Agreement 

SPS sanitary and phytosanitary standards 

SRM specified risk material 

SSA sub-Saharan Africa 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TAAC Trade Adjustment Assistance Center 

TAATC Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation (USDOL) 

TEC Transatlantic Economic Council 

TGAAA Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (part of ARRA) 

TIFA trade and investment framework agreement 

TNC Trade Negotiations Committee (WTO) 

TPA trade promotion agreement 

TPF Trade Policy Forum 

TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership 

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

TRQ tariff-rate quota 

UAE United Arab Emirates 

UN United Nations 

UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 

USCBP United States Customs and Border Protection 

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 

USDOS United States Department of State 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

USITC United States International Trade Commission 

USTR United States Trade Representative 

WebTR Web site on Tariffs and Rules of Origin (APEC)

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization 

WTO World Trade Organization 

xv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services expanded from $374.9 billion in 2009 to 

$495.7 billion in 2010 on a balance-of-payments basis, reversing a three-year downward 

trend. The deficit on goods increased from $506.9 billion in 2009 to $647.1 billion in 

2010, but remained substantially below the record $839.5 billion goods deficit in 2006. 

At the same time, the U.S. surplus on services rose from $132.0 billion in 2009 to a 

record $151.4 billion in 2010 (figure ES.1). The U.S. economic recovery that began in 

the summer of 2009 and continued in 2010 boosted the U.S. demand for imports in 2010. 

Similarly, continued recovery in the rest of the world, especially in emerging and 

developing economies, increased the demand for U.S. exports, though to a somewhat 

smaller degree. 

The U.S. recovery was driven by increases in private consumption and investment 

spending. The recovery followed the longest recession since World War II. Real gross 

domestic product (GDP) grew 2.9 percent in 2010, following no growth in 2008 and a 2.6 

percent contraction in 2009. Growth was uneven over the course of 2010, however, with 

slower growth in the second and third quarters. 

The U.S. dollar depreciated 1.3 percent in 2010 against a broad trade-weighted index of 

currencies. This trend was far from uniform: the European debt crisis, with financial 

bailouts for Greece in May and Ireland in November, drove the dollar to subsequent 

peaks against the euro and British pound following each of the bailouts, and to gains for 

the full year. However, the dollar’s depreciation against the Canadian dollar, the Mexican 

peso, and especially the Japanese yen outweighed its gains against European currencies 

to produce a small depreciation of the dollar against the broad index for the year. 

FIGURE ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1992–2010 

-1,000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

U.S. services trade balance

U.S. goods trade balance

Source: USDOC. 
xvi 

A summary of U.S. trade agreement activities in 2010 is presented below, followed by a 

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

agreement activities during 2010 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 2010 

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations 

Safeguard actions: In 2010, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC or the 

Commission) conducted no new safeguard investigations. Only one safeguard measure 

was in effect during 2010, 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 2010, there were two ongoing section 301 cases and one new section 301 

petition was filed. In September 2010, the United Steelworkers Union filed a section 301 

petition with the United States Trade Representative (USTR) 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 1994, China’s Protocol 

of Accession to the WTO, and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 

Measures. On October 15, 2010, USTR initiated an investigation, but decided to delay 

the request for consultations with the government of China in order to verify or improve 

the petition. The two ongoing section 301 cases during the year concerned the European 

Union’s meat hormone directive and the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. 

Special 301: In the 2010 Special 301 review, the 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 11 countries for its 

priority watch list, and highlighted particularly weak IPR protection and enforcement in 

China and Russia. Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, 

Thailand, and Venezuela were kept on USTR’s priority watch list due to significant 

concerns regarding IPR protection. While 29 countries remained on the watch list, the 

Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were removed because they had made significant 

progress on the protection and enforcement of IPR. 

Antidumping duty investigations: The USITC instituted 3 new antidumping duty 

investigations and completed 19 during 2010. Antidumping duty orders were issued by 

the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) in 17 of the investigations completed 

during 2010. 

Countervailing duty investigations: The USITC instituted 2 new countervailing duty 

investigations and completed 11 investigations during 2010. Countervailing duty orders 

were issued by the USDOC in 10 of the 11 completed investigations. 
xvii 

Sunset reviews: During 2010, the USDOC and the USITC instituted 73 sunset reviews of 

existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements. The 

Commission completed 32 reviews, resulting in 31 antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders being continued for five additional years. 

Section 337 investigations: During 2010, there were 108 active section 337 

investigations and ancillary proceedings, 63 of which were instituted in 2010. Of these 

63, 56 were new section 337 investigations and 7 were new ancillary proceedings relating 

to previously concluded investigations. In all but two of the new section 337 institutions 

in 2010, patent infringement was the only type of unfair act alleged in the complaint. 

About two-thirds of the active investigations in 2010 concerned products in the 

semiconductor, telecommunications, and electronics fields. At the close of 2010, 58 

section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending at the Commission. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): In 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) 

reported that it received 2,222 petitions for TAA for workers, a sharp decline from the 

4,549 filed in 2009; it certified 2,718 petitions as eligible for TAA during 2010, up from 

1,845 in 2009. According to the USDOL, more petitions were filed during 2009 due to 

the economic recession and the expansion of TAA coverage to service sector workers. 

TAA programs also provided assistance in 2010 to farmers, firms, and communities 

impacted by foreign trade. 

Trade Preference Programs 

Generalized System of Preferences: Duty-free U.S. imports under the Generalized 

System of Preferences (GSP) program totaled $22.6 billion in 2010; almost one-fourth of 

these imports were petroleum products. Thailand was the leading GSP beneficiary in 

2010, followed by Angola, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Equatorial Guinea. As of January 

1, 2010, the Republic of the Maldives was added to the list of GSP beneficiaries; Cape 

Verde was removed from the least-developed beneficiary developing countries 

(LDBDCs) list, though it remains a GSP beneficiary; and Trinidad and Tobago was 

removed from GSP eligibility based on its classification as a high-income economy. On 

January 1, 2011, Croatia and Equatorial Guinea were removed from the list of GSP 

beneficiaries based on high income. The President’s authority to provide duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program expired on December 31, 2010. 

African Growth and Opportunity Act: At the end of 2010, 38 sub-Saharan African 

(SSA) countries were designated for benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity 

Act (AGOA), and 26 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 

$44.3 billion in 2010. U.S. imports under AGOA, exclusive of GSP, were valued at 

$38.7 billion in 2010, up 37.8 percent from 2009. This increase was driven mainly by a 

rise in the value and quantity of U.S. imports of petroleum-related products, which made 

up 93.1 percent of imports under AGOA in 2010. 

Andean Trade Preference Act: At the end of 2010, certain products of two Andean 

countries—Colombia and Ecuador—were eligible for duty-free treatment under the 

Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), as amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and 

Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). Peru’s eligibility continued after the U.S.-Peru Trade 

Promotion Agreement (TPA) entered into force on February 1, 2009, but was not 

renewed on December 24, 2010, when ATPA was extended through February 12, 2011. 

U.S. imports under ATPA were valued at $14.4 billion in 2010, an increase of 48.3 
xviii 

percent from 2009. Imports from Colombia and Ecuador under ATPA increased 

substantially, while imports from Peru under ATPA decreased as Peru entered more of its 

exports to the United States under the U.S.-Peru TPA. Petroleum-related products 

accounted for 86.2 percent of U.S. imports under ATPA in 2010. Other leading imports 

under ATPA included fresh cut flowers, apparel, and pouched tuna. 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 

Act (CBERA), as amended by the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), 

provides duty-free and reduced-duty treatment for certain products from designated 

Caribbean Basin countries. In 2010, 18 countries were eligible for permanent CBERA 

preferences, and 8 were eligible for CBTPA preferences. U.S. imports under CBERA 

were valued at $2.9 billion in 2010, a 22.6 percent increase from $2.4 billion in 2009. 

This increase reflects substantial increases in 2010 in the prices of petroleum-related 

products and methanol, which are major imports from CBERA countries. Apparel was 

also a leading import under CBERA in 2010. Trinidad and Tobago was the leading 

supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 2010. In response to the devastating 

earthquake of January 2010, trade benefits for apparel from Haiti were expanded by the 

Haiti Economic Lift Program, which was signed into law on May 24, 2010. 

WTO and OECD 

WTO developments: Participants continued to meet in informal sessions during 2010 in 

an effort to conclude the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. By yearend, the 

WTO Director-General reported only that uneven progress had been made and that the 

pace of work needed to accelerate in order to conclude negotiations in 2011. No new 

members acceded to the WTO in 2010, leaving membership at 153. WTO members 

attempted to push forward with Russia’s accession negotiations in 2010, following the 

uncertainty arising from the 2009 announcement of a Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan 

customs union. At the end of the year, parties to the WTO Agreement on Government 

Procurement asked China to further revise its offer in connection with its bid to join the 

agreement, seeking to have the offer cover both subcentral government entities and some 

state-owned enterprises. 

WTO dispute settlement: Of the 17 requests for dispute settlement consultations filed 

during 2010, 4 involved the United States as complainant and 2 as the respondent. Of the 

7 new dispute settlement panels established in 2010, the United States had requested 1 

and was the named respondent in 4. A notable development in 2010 was the issuance of 

the panel report in the long-running case involving the U.S. complaint about EU 

measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft. 

OECD developments: Four new countries acceded to the OECD in 2010––Chile, 

Estonia, Israel, and Slovenia––bringing total membership to 34. At their annual 

ministerial meeting, members continued to focus on various aspects of economic 

recovery from the 2008–09 global downturn. At the end of 2010, participants in the 

Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft, part of the Arrangement on 

Officially Supported Export Credits, reached a tentative agreement on revisions that 

would raise the minimum interest rate on official export credits for large commercial 

aircraft. 

APEC developments: In 2010, APEC members discussed using existing regional 

agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated by the United States 

and eight other APEC economies, as pathways toward a future Free Trade Area of the 
xix 

Asia-Pacific. The Committee on Trade and Investment, which coordinates APEC’s trade 

and investment activities, continued to make progress throughout the year on initiatives 

related to regional economic integration, including the Pathfinder Initiative for SelfCertification of Origin and the Services Action Plan. 

Other plurilateral developments: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) 

negotiations successfully concluded on November 15, 2010. ACTA participants include 

Australia, Canada, the European Union (including its 27 member states), Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States. 

FTA Developments in 2010 

U.S. FTAs in force in 2010: The United States was a party to 11 FTAs as of December 

31, 2010. These include the U.S.-Oman FTA, which entered into force in 2009; the U.S.-

Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) (2009); a multiparty FTA with the 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 later with respect to 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: In October 2010, the United States-Israel Joint Committee agreed to 

develop a work plan under the U.S.-Israel FTA that would review customs procedures 

and regulations, address remaining barriers to bilateral trade in the areas of agriculture 

and services, and include negotiation of a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) to 

assess conformity in telecommunications equipment. On July 30, 2010, the United States 

expressed its concern that the government of Peru had not taken the steps needed for 

complete implementation of the Annex on Forest Sector Governance under the U.S.-Peru 

TPA by the August 1, 2010, deadline. In the first labor case brought against a U.S. FTA 

partner, USTR announced on July 30, 2010, that the United States would file a case 

against Guatemala under CAFTA-DR for apparent violations of obligations on labor 

rights. During 2010, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries held four rounds of 

negotiations and, in December, finalized technical details necessary to prepare initial 

goods market access offers, which the countries planned to exchange in early 2011. 

Besides the United States, TPP countries include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, 

Malaysia (which formally joined the TPP negotiations in October 2010), New Zealand, 

Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. 

FTA merchandise trade flows with FTA partners: In 2010, total two-way merchandise 

trade between the United States and its FTA partners was $1.0 trillion, or more than onethird of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to FTA 

partners increased strongly, rising by 21.5 percent to $434.7 billion and accounting for 

38.7 percent of total U.S. exports. However, U.S. imports of goods from FTA partners 

increased even more strongly, rising by 24.3 percent to $590.1 billion and accounting for 

31.1 percent of U.S. imports from the world. As a result, the 2010 U.S. merchandise trade 

deficit with its FTA partners increased by $38.5 billion to $155.4 billion. The United 

States had a trade deficit with its NAFTA partners of $166.8 billion, while registering a 

trade surplus with its other FTA partners of $11.5 billion. U.S. imports under FTA 

provisions were valued at $311.3 billion, accounting for 16.4 percent of total U.S. 

imports in 2010. 
xx 

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. In 

2010, the United States, Canada, and Mexico initialed the basic terms of an MRA for 

telecommunications equipment and renewed an MRA concerning accounting services in 

the three countries. NAFTA countries also reached a preliminary agreement on a fourth 

set of changes to the NAFTA rules of origin, to be implemented in 2011, on goods for 

which annual trade among the three NAFTA parties exceeds $90 billion. One new 

submission on labor matters was filed in 2010 under the North American Agreement on 

Labor Cooperation (NAALC), a supplemental agreement to NAFTA. At the end of 2010, 

13 files remained active under articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), a supplemental agreement to NAFTA, of which 3 

were submitted in 2010. 

NAFTA dispute settlement: In 2010, there was one active case filed by Canadian 

investors 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 10 binational panels active under 

chapter 19, all of which challenged U.S. agencies’ antidumping and countervailing duty 

determinations. Among these panels, 3 were formed in 2010; all of these challenged U.S. 

agencies’ determinations on products from Mexico. 

Trade Activities with Major Trade Partners 

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. U.S. merchandise trade with the EU was valued at 

$532.2 billion in 2010, accounting for 17.6 percent of total U.S. trade. U.S. merchandise 

exports to the EU totaled $217.3 billion while the value of U.S. merchandise imports 

from the EU was $314.9 billion, resulting in a U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU 

of $97.6 billion in 2010. Leading U.S. exports included aircraft and aircraft parts, certain 

medicaments, petroleum products, nonmonetary gold, blood fractions (e.g., antiserum), 

coal, passenger motor vehicles, and medical instruments. Leading U.S. imports included 

certain medicaments, passenger motor vehicles, petroleum products, nucleic acids and 

their salts, aircraft and aircraft parts, and heterocyclic compounds. The EU was also the 

United States’ largest trading partner in terms of services in 2010, accounting for 33.4 

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

services with the EU of $49.1 billion in 2010. 

The U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) took a number of concrete steps in 

2010. The two sides signed several sectoral statements and agreements to improve 

regulatory cooperation, including on electronic health record systems, chemicals, and 

efficiency standards for energy-related products. The TEC also launched a work plan to 

promote cooperation on innovation, and a joint Web site with information on how to fight 

counterfeiting and piracy. 

 1

 The 27 members of the EU in 2010 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, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 
xxi 

Canada 

Canada was the United States’ largest single-country trading partner in 2010, accounting 

for 15.9 percent of total U.S. two-way trade. U.S. merchandise exports to Canada were 

$206.0 billion and U.S. merchandise imports from Canada amounted to $275.5 billion, 

which resulted in a trade deficit of $69.6 billion. Leading U.S. exports were motor 

vehicles and parts; energy products, such as natural gas and petroleum-related products; 

aircraft and aircraft parts; metal products, such as gold scrap and aluminum plate; and 

medicaments. Leading U.S. imports from Canada were energy products, such as 

petroleum-related products, natural and propane gas, and electricity; motor vehicles and 

vehicle parts; metals, such as gold, aluminum, and copper; wood and wood products; and 

medicaments. The U.S. trade surplus in private services with Canada expanded 21.2 

percent, from $20.0 billion in 2009 to $24.2 billion in 2010. 

In 2010, the United States and Canada were involved in three separate arbitration cases 

under the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement: (1) arbitration on export measures, (2) 

arbitration on provincial subsidies, and (3) arbitration on underpricing of governmentowned timber in British Columbia. There is also an active section 301 investigation 

concerning the Softwood Lumber Agreement. In February, the United States and Canada 

reached a tentative agreement on government procurement that provides reciprocal and 

permanent market access commitments regarding provincial, territorial, and state 

procurement, and reciprocal but temporary market access regarding a range of 

construction and public works projects. Canada’s government also introduced legislation 

aimed at establishing adequate and effective IPR protection and enforcement within 

Canada and at its borders. 

China 

In 2010, China was the United States’ second-largest single-country trading partner, 

based on two-way trade, and accounted for 14.9 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The 

United States’ bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China, which rose by $47.9 billion 

to $278.3 billion in 2010, remained higher than the U.S. deficit with any other country. 

U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $85.7 billion in 2010, and U.S. imports 

from China amounted to $364.0 billion. Leading U.S. exports were soybeans, metal 

waste and scrap, aircraft, and computer chips. Leading U.S. imports were computers and 

computer parts, wireless telephones, toys, and video games. The United States ran a 

services trade surplus with China in 2010 of $10.4 billion, compared to $7.5 billion the 

year before. 

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

relations in 2010. Notable areas of U.S. concern were China’s IPR enforcement policies, 

a ban on U.S. beef and pork exports to China, and yuan currency valuation. 

Mexico 

In 2010, U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico—the United States’ third-largest singlecountry trading partner—was valued at $360.4 billion, accounting for approximately 11.9 

percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. exports to Mexico were $131.6 

billion and U.S. imports from Mexico were $228.8 billion, resulting in a merchandise 

trade deficit of $97.2 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Mexico included refined petroleum 

products, motor vehicles and parts, corn, soybeans, plastic articles, aircraft and aircraft 

parts, and parts for electrical apparatus. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included 
xxii 

crude petroleum, televisions, motor vehicles and parts, computers, cell phones, gold, and 

medical instruments. The United States registered a trade surplus in services of $9.3 

billion with Mexico in 2010. 

In 2009, in response to the United States’ termination of the Cross-Border Trucking 

Demonstration Project, Mexico suspended the preferential tariffs it had applied to certain 

U.S. goods. The government of Mexico stated that the termination of the demonstration 

project was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under NAFTA. On August 19, 2010, 

Mexico revised the list of U.S. goods subject to higher tariffs as a result of this continuing 

dispute. The revised list added 26 new tariff lines and removed 16 for a total of 99 tariff 

lines, compared with 89 on the previous list. 

Japan 

Japan was the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner in 2010. U.S. 

merchandise trade with Japan was valued at $175.7 billion in 2010, accounting for 5.8 

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

$55.7 billion, and U.S. imports from Japan were $119.9 billion, resulting in a U.S. 

merchandise trade deficit of $64.2 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were aircraft 

and aircraft parts, corn, certain medicaments, soybeans, and wheat. Leading U.S. imports 

from Japan were passenger vehicles and parts, parts for printers and copying machines, 

cameras, and parts of airplanes or helicopters. The U.S. services trade surplus with Japan 

was $22.0 billion in 2010. 

Numerous economic cooperation initiatives between Japan and the United States were 

advanced or commenced during 2010, including an Open Skies Agreement and the U.S.-

Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the Internet Economy. In 2010, the United States 

and Japan also held talks on U.S. beef exports to Japan, bilateral trade in automobiles, 

and regulatory reform, including economy-wide and sector-specific reforms. 

Republic of Korea 

The Republic of Korea (Korea) was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country 

trading partner in 2010. Two-way merchandise trade was valued at $84.8 billion, 

accounting for 2.8 percent of total U.S. trade. U.S. exports to Korea were valued at $36.8 

billion, and U.S. imports from Korea totaled $47.9 billion, resulting in an $11.1 billion 

trade deficit in 2010, the smallest deficit in the last decade. Leading U.S. exports to 

Korea during the year included machinery for producing semiconductors and computer 

chips, aircraft, corn, and transistors. Leading U.S. imports from Korea included cell 

phones, automobiles, computer parts and accessories (mainly memory modules), and 

computer chips. The U.S. trade surplus in services with Korea increased $1.4 billion to 

$7.6 billion in 2010. 

U.S.-Korean trade relations in 2010 were dominated by the status of the United StatesKorea FTA (KORUS FTA). The KORUS FTA was signed in June 2007, and portions 

affecting automobile trade were renegotiated in 2010. In addition, as part of the 2010 

negotiations related to this FTA, the United States attempted to include a deal allowing 

U.S. beef exports to Korea to include beef from cattle of all ages. However, no provisions 

addressing beef were in the final agreement. 
xxiii 

Taiwan 

Taiwan was the United States’ ninth-largest single-country trading partner in 2010, and 

accounted for 2.0 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The U.S. merchandise trade 

deficit with Taiwan widened slightly to $11.7 billion in 2010. U.S. merchandise exports 

to Taiwan amounted to $23.9 billion in 2010, led by semiconductor manufacturing and 

assembly equipment, soybeans, corn, computer chips, aircraft, and ferrous waste and 

scrap. U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan totaled $35.6 billion in 2010, led by cell 

phones, computer chips, computer parts, radio navigational aid apparatus (mainly GPS 

devices), and reception apparatus for televisions. The U.S. services trade surplus with 

Taiwan jumped to $3.3 billion in 2010, 145.7 percent higher than the 2009 surplus. 

In 2010, Taiwan partially reversed a 2009 agreement granting greater market access to 

U.S. beef imports by banning certain U.S. beef products, including ground beef. As a 

result of the dispute over beef, annual high-level meetings under the U.S.-Taiwan Trade 

and Investment Framework Agreement have not been held since 2007. 

Brazil 

U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil—the United States’ 10th-largest single-country 

trading partner—was valued at $53.6 billion in 2010, accounting for 1.8 percent of U.S. 

merchandise trade with the world. U.S. exports to Brazil amounted to $30.2 billion, and 

U.S. imports from Brazil were $23.4 billion, for a U.S. merchandise trade surplus of $6.8 

billion—more than double the 2009 surplus. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil were aircraft 

and aircraft parts, petroleum oils and refined petroleum products, coal, and medicaments 

and vaccines. Leading U.S. imports from Brazil included crude petroleum, unroasted 

coffee, chemical wood pulp, pig and semifinished iron, and aircraft (regional jet aircraft). 

The U.S. services trade surplus with Brazil was $10.6 billion in 2010. 

Important progress was made in resolving the ongoing U.S.-Brazil dispute over U.S. 

cotton subsidies. On April 20, 2010, U.S. and Brazilian officials signed a memorandum 

of understanding establishing a fund to provide technical assistance and capacity building 

for the Brazilian cotton sector. On June 25, 2010, the United States and Brazil signed the 

Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution to the Cotton Dispute. 

India 

U.S. merchandise trade with India—the United States’ 12th-largest single-country trading 

partner—was valued at $46.0 billion in 2010, accounting for 1.5 percent of U.S. 

merchandise trade with the world. U.S. exports to India were $16.4 billion, and U.S. 

imports from India were $29.6 billion, for a U.S. merchandise trade deficit of $13.2 

billion, double the 2009 figure. Leading U.S. exports to India included nonmonetary 

gold, aircraft and aircraft parts, diammonium phosphate (fertilizer), nonindustrial 

diamonds, and coal. Leading U.S. imports from India included nonindustrial diamonds; 

refined petroleum; therapeutic or prophylactic medicaments; gold and platinum jewelry; 

and bed linens, towels, and apparel. The United States also registered a trade deficit in 

services with India of $3.0 billion, a 25 percent increase from 2009. 

During 2010, the United States and India signed a Framework for Cooperation on Trade 

and Investment seeking to strengthen bilateral cooperation and build on recent rapid 

growth in U.S.-India trade. The chairs of the United States-India Trade Policy Forum 

Focus Groups also met to discuss IPR, market access in the services sector, tariff and 
xxiv 

nontariff measures, agricultural and industrial standards issues, and investment policy. 

The United States continued to monitor India’s IPR protection performance. 

Russia 

In 2010, Russia ranked 23rd among the United States’ major single-country trading 

partners, accounting for 1.0 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. In 2010, U.S. 

imports from Russia ($25.2 billion) were over four times larger than U.S. exports to 

Russia ($5.7 billion), which resulted in a trade deficit of $19.5 billion. Leading U.S. 

exports were chicken, aircraft, mechanical machinery (such as boring, harvesting, and 

sinking machinery, gas turbines, and parts), polyvinyl chloride, pork, and beef. Leading 

U.S. imports were petroleum and petroleum products; liquefied ethylene, propylene, 

butylene, and other distillates; and metals, such as uranium, nickel, ferrochromium, 

aluminum, palladium, and titanium. Data are not available for U.S. trade in private 

services with Russia. 

At the end of 2010, Russia’s WTO accession negotiations were reported to be in their 

final stages. However, Russia’s increasing trade restrictions (i.e., stricter tariff-rate 

quotas, and health and sanitary regulations) on beef, pork, and poultry imports continued 

to cause complications. 
xxv 

January 

1: Russia implements a new ban on poultry 

imports treated with chlorine-rinse washes, 

widely used by U.S. poultry producers. 

5: Taiwan bans imports of some cuts of U.S. 

beef, including ground beef. 

12: The Office of the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) makes changes to its 

Special 301 review process addressing 

intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, 

adding a public hearing to the process. USTR 

announces it will establish a Web site dedicated 

to the Special 301 review process that will 

include links to current and historical information 

about the review. 

19: Japan alters the rules of its cash-for-clunkers 

program in order to open the program to some 

U.S.-made vehicles. 

19: The World Trade Organization (WTO) 

Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) establishes a 

dispute panel regarding a complaint by China 

concerning U.S. measures affecting imports of 

passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China 

(DS399). 

19: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body 

and panel reports regarding a complaint by the 

United States concerning China’s measures 

affecting trading rights and distribution services 

for certain publications and audiovisual 

entertainment products (DS363). 

21: USTR adds small business issues to the 

portfolio of the Assistant USTR for Market Access 

and Industrial Competitiveness. 

26: U.S. Customs and Border Protection begins 

enforcement of the “10-plus-two” rule. This rule 

requires importers to supply 10 data points––

known as the Importer Security Filing––and 

ocean carriers to supply two pieces of data 

before their imports or container cargo enters a 

U.S. port. 

26–29: The seventh negotiating round for the 

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement begins in 

Guadalajara, Mexico. 

February 

4: The U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) 

unveils a three-pronged National Export Initiative 

(NEI) that will step up government advocacy for 

U.S. companies in foreign markets, increase 

financing that supports exports by small and 

medium-sized businesses, and toughen 

enforcement of existing U.S. trade deals. USDOC 

also announces the creation of a new Export 

Promotion Cabinet, which will consist of top 

officials from the Departments of Commerce, 

Treasury, State, and Agriculture, as well as from 

the Export-Import Bank, USTR, and the Small 

Business Administration. USDOC says the group 

will give political direction to the existing Trade 

Promotion Coordinating Committee, which will 

“operationalize” the NEI. 

12: The United States and Canada sign a 

bilateral agreement on government procurement. 

The agreement provides for permanent U.S. 

access to Canadian provincial and territorial 

procurement contracts in accordance with the 

WTO Agreement on Government Procurement 

(GPA). In addition, the agreement enables U.S. 

companies to compete, through September 2011, 

for Canadian provincial and municipal 

construction contracts not covered under the 

GPA. The United States will provide reciprocal 

access for Canadian companies to 37 states 

already covered under the GPA and to a limited 

number of programs under the 2009 U.S. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

18: The WTO DSB adopts a dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by Thailand concerning 

U.S. antidumping measures on polyethylene 

retail carrier bags from Thailand (DS383). 

 

March

5: The United States and Russia announce an 

agreement to reopen Russia’s market to U.S. 

pork exports after Russia declared all major U.S. 

pork facilities ineligible to export to Russia in late 

2009 owing to claims that the level of tetracycline 

found in imported pork from those facilities failed 

to meet Russian health standards. 

8: Brazil notifies the WTO DSB that certain U.S. 

products will be subject to increased retaliatory 

duties, and certain IPR concessions will be 

suspended, as a result of U.S. failure to comply 

with the DSB findings concerning U.S. measures 

on cotton (DS267). 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2010 trade agreement activities 
xxvi 

March––Continued

8: The U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets 

Control formally lifts export restrictions on the 

provision of Internet services to Iran, Sudan, and 

Cuba, along with the free downloads of software 

needed for such services.

11: The President announces the relaunching of 

the President’s Export Council, a group of chief 

executive officers from major U.S. businesses 

that deliver annual recommendations to the 

President on how to boost U.S. exports by 

eliminating barriers to trade. The group had been 

inactive since the end of the previous 

administration. 

17: The United States and India sign a 

Framework for Cooperation on Trade and 

Investment. 

19: USTR and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) announce that the United 

States and China have reached an agreement on 

reopening Chinese markets to U.S. pork and pork 

products. 

22: USTR announces reallocation of the unused 

share of the FY 2010 tariff-rate quota for raw 

cane sugar. 

April 

6: The United States and Brazil reach 

preliminary agreement in the WTO dispute 

concerning U.S. measures on cotton (DS267), 

delaying as a result planned Brazilian retaliation 

on U.S. goods exports and IPR concessions, 

pending further discussions. 

14: A binational panel under the North American 

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) affirms the 

USDOC decision to use the U.S. antidumping 

methodology known as zeroing in a case 

involving an administrative review of stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico (USAMEX-2007-1904-01). 

20: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

(DS403) regarding a complaint by the United 

States concerning the Philippines’ taxes on 

distilled spirits. 

April––Continued

20: The USDA increases fees for most 

categories of transactions under the General 

Sales Manager 102 export credit guarantee 

program, with the highest increases affecting 

guarantees for transactions with high-risk 

countries and long loan repayment periods.

30: In its Special 301 report concerning IPR 

protection, USTR removes the Czech Republic, 

Hungary, and Poland from its watch list. 

May 

1: The European Union (EU) expands its list of 

U.S. products subject to retaliation pursuant to 

WTO DSB rulings concerning the so-called Byrd 

Amendment (DS217). The list includes 19 new 

products, all but one of which are apparel. 

11: The EU agrees to refrain until 2011 from 

imposing retaliatory measures resulting from a 

WTO ruling against the United States concerning 

U.S. laws, regulations, and methodology for 

calculating dumping margins (“zeroing”) (DS294). 

18: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

regarding a complaint by Vietnam concerning 

U.S. antidumping measures on frozen warmwater 

shrimp (DS404). In addition to several 

administrative and new shipper reviews, the 

request for consultations concerns several U.S. 

laws, regulations, administrative proceedings, 

and practices, including zeroing methodology. 

20: The United States and Libya sign a trade 

and investment framework agreement. 

24: The President signs the Haiti Economic Lift 

Program, which expands the U.S. import quota 

for certain textiles and apparel and extends the 

Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act until 

September 30, 2020. 

24–25: The U.S.-China Strategic and Economic 

Dialogue takes place in Beijing, China. 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. 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2010 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxvii 

June 

8: The United States and EU sign an agreement 

designed to resolve the long-running dispute over 

the EU banana import regime. 

17: Brazil approves a framework agreement with 

the United States, reached tentatively in April, 

that averts possible retaliation measures in the 

WTO dispute case concerning U.S. measures on 

cotton (DS267). 

24: The U.S. President and the Russian 

President meet in Washington, DC, to develop 

more substantive ties between the two countries 

and resolve key issues involving beef, pork, and 

poultry exports to Russia, as well as how to 

expedite Russia’s bid for WTO accession. 

30: The WTO circulates a dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by the United States 

concerning EU measures affecting trade in large 

civil aircraft (DS316). 

July

2: The United States withdraws duty-free status 

for certain passenger tires from Thailand under 

an annual review of the U.S. Generalized System 

of Preferences program. 

14: The United States and Russia formally sign 

a bilateral agreement that will allow U.S. 

exporters to resume poultry shipments to Russia 

using one or a combination of three specific 

pathogen-reduction treatments. 

20: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

regarding a complaint by Indonesia concerning a 

U.S. ban on clove cigarettes (DS406). 

21: The EU appeals certain issues of law and 

legal interpretations in the WTO panel report on 

the U.S. complaint concerning measures 

affecting trade in large civil aircraft in the EU and 

certain EU member states (DS316). 

30: The United States initiates its first laborrelated enforcement case under a free trade 

agreement (FTA) by seeking formal consultations 

with Guatemala under the Dominican RepublicCentral America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement (CAFTA-DR), for what the United 

States claims is a pattern of failure to enforce its 

own labor laws, in a formal consultation request 

sent by USTR and the U.S. Secretary of Labor to 

their Guatemalan counterparts. 

30: India and the United States sign an 

agreement that will allow India to reprocess U.S.-

origin spent nuclear fuel. 

August 

2–6: The ninth African Growth and Opportunity 

Act forum is held in Washington, DC, and Kansas 

City, Missouri. 

4: Russia suspends the bilateral poultry 

agreement reached in July and proposes to put 

Russian inspectors at U.S. plants exporting 

poultry to Russia. 

11: Mexico ends its antidumping duty measures 

on U.S. beef imports. 

11: The President signs the Manufacturing 

Enhancement Act, also known as the 

Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, into law as part of the 

February NEI. This law suspends duties on 

hundreds of industrial inputs. 

19: Mexico alters its list of retaliatory tariffs, 

which were imposed on U.S. exports under 

NAFTA after the United States terminated the 

Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project; 

Mexico added 26 new products and dropped 16 

from its previous list. 

19: Following the EU appeal (July 21), the 

United States appeals certain issues of law and 

legal interpretations in the WTO panel report on 

its complaint concerning measures affecting 

trade in large civil aircraft in the EU and certain 

EU member states (DS316). 

30: The President issues an executive order 

widening sanctions against North Korea. 

September 

1: Canada begins to impose a 10 percent ad 

valorem export charge on softwood lumber 

destined for the United States, to resolve a 

dispute concerning export measures under the 

2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. 

7: The USDOC Bureau of Industry and Security 

issues a final rule implementing changes 

approved at the 2009 plenary meeting of the 

Wassenaar Arrangement, a multilateral 

agreement that governs export controls for 

armaments and dual-use goods and 

technologies. The rule affects some 40 export 

control classification numbers. 

8: The WTO DSB arbitration panel concerning 

U.S. laws, regulations, and methodology for 

calculating dumping margins (“zeroing”), 

suspends proceedings at the mutual request of 

the United States and EU (DS294). 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2010 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxviii 

September––Continued 

10: The United States resumes exports of 

poultry to Russia from a limited number of U.S. 

producers approved by Russia. 

15: The WTO dispute panel examining an EU 

complaint challenging U.S. measures affecting 

trade in large civil aircraft (second complaint) 

(DS353) issues its interim report. The chairman 

reports that the panel expects to complete its 

work in the first half of 2011. 

15: The United States seeks formal WTO 

dispute settlement consultations with China 

regarding certain restrictions and requirements 

maintained by China pertaining to electronic 

payment services for payment card transactions 

and the suppliers of those services (DS413). 

21: The WTO DSB adopts a dispute panel report 

regarding a complaint by the United States 

concerning EU tariff treatment of certain 

information technology products, in particular flatpanel display devices, certain set-top boxes, and 

multifunctional digital machines (DS375), ruling 

that the EU violated its WTO commitments. 

30: The U.S. Department of State announces 

that it is for the first time sanctioning a foreign 

company under the Iran Sanctions Act for 

investing in Iran’s energy sector, and that four 

major international oil companies have pledged 

to end their investments in Iran’s energy sector 

under threat of U.S. sanctions. 

October 

1: The United States and Russia reach an 

agreement under which Russian inspectors will 

inspect all types of U.S. poultry plants to see 

whether they meet specified health and sanitary 

criteria for export to Russia. 

1: USTR expands its Special 301 report to 

include a separate “notorious markets” section. 

5: Malaysia officially joins talks to establish a 

Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. 

15: The United States initiates a section 301 

investigation into China’s policies affecting trade 

and investment in green technologies. 

October––Continued

25: The WTO DSB adopts a dispute panel report 

on a complaint by China concerning U.S. 

measures affecting the import of poultry products 

from China (DS392), ruling that the U.S. 

measures violate its WTO commitments. 

November 

1: The U.S.-Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue 

on the Internet Economy is launched.

3: The United States and Korea reach an 

agreement resolving outstanding issues with the 

U.S.-Korea FTA related to trade in automobiles. 

12: The President issues an executive order to 

establish an export enforcement coordination 

center housed in, and budgeted by, the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security. 

12–14: Japan hosts the 22nd Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation (APEC) Annual Summit in 

Yokohama. Leaders from member countries 

meet to discuss progress toward the Bogor goals, 

pathways toward a free trade area of the AsiaPacific, and progress made during the year on 

APEC’s Regional Economic Integration 

initiatives.

13: The United States and Japan launch the 

U.S.-Japan Dialogue to Promote Innovation, 

Entrepreneurship and Job Creation; the EnergySmart Communities Initiative; the U.S.-Japan 

Clean Energy Policy Dialogue; and the U.S.-

Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative.

15: Participants in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 

Agreement negotiations finalize the text of the 

agreement.

December 

13: The United States and Yemen conclude a 

bilateral WTO accession agreement. 

13: The WTO circulates a dispute panel report 

on a complaint by China concerning U.S. 

measures affecting imports of passenger vehicle 

and light truck tires from China (DS399); the 

report upholds the U.S. measures.

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2010 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxix 

December––Continued 

14–15: The U.S.-China Joint Commission on 

Commerce and Trade takes place in Washington, 

DC. Several topics are discussed, including the 

enforcement of IPR in China and China’s 

“indigenous innovation” policies. 

21: The WTO dispute panel established in 

November 2009 to examine complaints by 

Canada (DS384) and Mexico (DS386) 

concerning mandatory U.S. country-of-origin 

labeling provisions reports that the panel expects 

to issue its final report to the parties by the 

middle of 2011. 

22: The United States requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with China concerning 

certain measures providing grants, funds, or 

awards to enterprises manufacturing wind power 

equipment (including the overall unit and parts) in 

China. 

December––Continued 

22: Participants in the Aircraft Sector 

Understanding (ASU), part of the OECD 

Arrangement on Officially Supported Export 

Credits, reach agreement in principle to raise the 

minimum interest rate and set a maximum loan 

term that official export credit agencies may offer 

as part of sales of large and regional aircraft. 

The revised ASU enters into effect on February 

1, 2011. 

23: USTR releases the 2010 report to Congress 

on China’s WTO compliance. 

24: The Andean Trade Preference Act is 

extended through February 12, 2011, for 

Colombia and Ecuador. 

31: The President’s authority to provide duty-free 

treatment under the Generalized System of 

Preferences program expires. 

Sources: Compiled from official and private sources, including the USDOC, USTR, WTO, Inside U.S. Trade, 

and International Trade Daily. 

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2010 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 2010.1

 Trade agreement activities during 

2010 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 thereunder. These materials principally 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). Additional 

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

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

(UN), and official publications of foreign governments. Professional journals, trade 

publications, and news reports are used to provide 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). 

Overview of the U.S. Economy in 2010 

The U.S. economic recovery that began in the summer of 2009 continued in 2010, driven 

by increases in private consumption and investment spending.2

 The recovery followed the 

longest recession since World War II.3

 Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew 2.9 

percent in 2010, following no growth in 2008 and a 2.6 percent contraction in 2009 

(figure 1.1). Growth turned positive in the third quarter of 2009 and was uneven over the 

course of 2010, with slower growth in the second and third quarters (figure 1.2). This 

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

Federal Reserve to deliver an additional stimulus via monetary policy during the second 

half of 2010.4

 The increase in real GDP in 2010 primarily reflected positive contributions 

from private inventory investment, exports, personal consumption expenditures, 

 1

 This is the 62nd 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

 USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2010,” March 25, 2011. 3

 NBER, “Announcement of June 2009 Business Cycle Trough,” September 20, 2010. 4

 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, March 1, 

2011, 1. 
1-2 

FIGURE 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, in percent change, 2001–10 

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Percent, annual rate

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls. 

Note: Real GDP growth in 2008 was near zero. 

FIGURE 1.2 U.S. real gross domestic product, quarterly, in percent change, 2009–10 

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

2009-Q1 2009-Q2 2009-Q3 2009-Q4 2010-Q1 2010-Q2 2010-Q3 2010-Q4

Percent, annual rate

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls. 
1-3 

nonresidential fixed investment, and federal government spending. Imports, which are a 

subtraction in the calculation of GDP, also rose.5

 

U.S. international trade grew substantially in 2010; the U.S. economic recovery increased 

the U.S. demand for imports in 2010, while continued recovery in the rest of the world 

increased the demand for U.S. exports. The global economy grew 5 percent in 2010, 

although the pace was geographically uneven.6

 Economic growth was modest in major 

advanced economies (3.0 percent), whereas many emerging and developing economies 

saw robust growth (average 7.3 percent). Among major U.S. trading partners, output in 

the European Union (EU) euro area increased 1.7 percent, in Japan 3.9 percent, in the 

United Kingdom 1.3 percent, in Canada 3.1 percent, and in Mexico 5.5 percent, whereas 

output in China and India grew at 10.3 percent and 10.4 percent, respectively, in 2010.7

Exchange-Rate Trends 8

The U.S. dollar depreciated 1.3 percent in 2010 against a broad dollar index.9 Although 

the European debt crisis, with financial bailouts for Greece in May and for Ireland in 

November, drove the dollar to subsequent peaks (as shown in figure 1.3) against the euro 

and the British pound, the dollar’s depreciation against the Canadian dollar, Mexican 

peso, and especially the Japanese yen balanced its gains against European currencies. For 

the year, the dollar depreciated 3.4 percent against the Canadian dollar, 3.3 percent 

against the Mexican peso, 8.5 percent against the Japanese yen, and 2.6 percent against 

the Chinese yuan, while appreciating 3.6 percent against the British pound and 7.9 

percent against the euro. 

Balance of Payments 10

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

income, and net unilateral current transfers—rose from $378.4 billion (revised) in 2009 to 

$470.2 billion (preliminary) in 2010, the first year-on-year increase in the deficit since 

 5

 USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2010,” March 25, 2011. 6

 IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2011, 1. 7

 IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2011, table 1.1, 2. 8

 Unless otherwise indicated, information in this section is from the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, March 1, 2011, 30–35. 9

 The broad 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. The index weights, which change over time, are 

derived from U.S. export shares and from U.S. and foreign import shares. Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, “Summary Measures of the Foreign Exchange Value of the Dollar,” n.d. (accessed April 12, 

2011). 10 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 Bach, “A Guide to the U.S. International Transactions Accounts,” 

February 2010. 
1-4 

FIGURE 1.3 Indices of dollar exchange rates for selected major currencies and broad measures, monthly, 

2010a

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

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

Broad dollar index Euro Canadian dollar Yuan Yen Peso Pound

Jan 2010 = 100

← Depreciation $ Appreciation

→

 

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. 

2006.11 The deficit also rose as a share of U.S. GDP, growing from 2.7 percent in 2009 to 

3.2 percent in 2010. The increase in the current-account deficit was due to a large 

increase in the goods deficit as well as an increase in net unilateral current transfers to 

foreigners, partly offset by increases in the surpluses on services and income. 

Specifically, the deficit on international trade in goods increased 27.6 percent, from 

$506.9 billion in 2009 to $647.1 billion in 2010, while net unilateral current transfers to 

foreign residents rose 10.0 percent, from $124.9 billion to $137.5 billion.12 At the same 

time, the surplus on international trade in services grew 14.6 percent, from $132.0 billion 

to $151.4 billion. The surplus on income grew even faster, rising 34.2 percent, from 

 11 Unless otherwise indicated, information in this section is from USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International 

Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2010,” March 10, 2011. 12 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). 
1-5 

$121.4 billion to $163.0 billion.13 Finally, net financial inflows, which offset the deficit 

on current account,14 were $235.3 billion, up from $216.1 billion in 2009.15

The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services increased from $374.9 billion in 2009 to 

$495.7 billion in 2010, reversing a downward trend of several years. The deficit on goods 

rose from $506.9 billion in 2009 to $647.1 billion in 2010, which was substantially below 

the record $839.5 billion goods deficit in 2006. U.S. exports of goods increased from 

$1,068.5 billion to $1,288.7 billion, as exports in all major product categories increased 

substantially. Imports of goods rose from $1,575.4 billion to $1,935.7 billion; here, too, 

the figures for all major product categories showed growth, most of it substantial. 

While it was not large enough to offset the large deficit on trade in goods, the U.S. 

surplus on services grew from $132.0 billion in 2009 to $151.4 billion in 2010, a new 

record.16 Services exports rose from $502.3 billion to $545.5 billion during this period. 

All major categories of services exports increased, with the largest increases in other 

private services17 and travel. At the same time, services imports also increased, rising 

from $370.3 billion to $394.2 billion. All major categories of services imports increased 

except direct defense expenditures. 

U.S. Trade in Goods in 2010 

Both U.S. merchandise exports and U.S. merchandise imports increased substantially in 

2010, by 19.8 percent and 22.6 percent respectively, as the U.S. and world economies 

recovered from the downturn of 2008–09. 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 $936.7 billion (6.6 percent of GDP) in 2009 to 

$1,122.1 billion (7.7 percent of GDP) in 2010 (figure 1.4),18 while U.S. merchandise 

imports increased from $1,549.2 billion (11.0 percent of GDP) in 2009 to $1,898.6 billion 

(13.0 percent of GDP) in 2010. 

U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category 

Exports 

Machinery and transport equipment, which consistently ranks as the largest U.S. export 

category by value under the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) system, 

 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 The other major offset to the current account deficit is statistical discrepancies. 15 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. 16 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. 17 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 

Account Data, March 16, 2011, table 3a. 18 Merchandise trade data in this section do not match the seasonally adjusted BOP-basis data presented 

above because of adjustments made to the data, as described in footnote 10. 
1-6 

FIGURE 1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2008–10 

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

accounted for 37.8 percent of exports in 2010 (appendix table A.1). U.S. exports of 

machinery and transport equipment were valued at $424.4 billion in 2010, up 15.5 

percent from $367.3 billion in 2009. Nearly 60 percent of the total increase in exports in 

2010 was accounted for by increased U.S. exports of goods from the following three 

SITC groups: machinery and transport equipment; chemicals and related products; and 

mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials. No SITC group registered a decrease in 

exports from 2009 to 2010. 

Imports 

U.S. imports of goods in all SITC groups increased between 2009 and 2010, resulting in 

an increase of $349.4 billion, or a 22.6 percent increase, in total imports over 2009. 

Nearly 64 percent of the increase in imports in 2010 was accounted for by increased U.S. 

imports of goods from the following two SITC groups, which were also the largest U.S. 

import categories in 2010: machinery and transport equipment; and mineral fuels, 

lubricants, and related materials. U.S. imports of machinery and transport equipment 

increased 25.2 percent, from $567.5 billion in 2009 to $710.8 billion in 2010, which 

accounted for 37.4 percent of total U.S. imports in 2010. U.S. imports of mineral fuels, 

lubricants, and related materials were valued at $336.1 billion in 2010, up 30.6 percent 

from $257.3 billion in 2009. This SITC group accounted for 17.7 percent of total U.S. 

imports in 2010, up from 16.6 percent in 2009. 

U.S. Imports under Preferential Trade Programs and Free Trade 

Agreements 

U.S. imports under the United States’ four preferential trade programs with developing 

countries increased from $60.4 billion in 2009 to $78.5 billion in 2010, or 4.1 percent of 

total U.S. imports during the year. Duty-free imports totaled $22.6 billion under the U.S. 

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program (appendix table A.11), $38.7 billion 

(excluding GSP imports) under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) 
1-7 

(appendix table A.13), and $14.4 billion under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) 

(appendix table A.15). In addition, imports that entered free of duty or at reduced rates 

under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) totaled $2.9 billion 

(appendix table A.17). U.S. imports under free trade or trade promotion agreement 

provisions also increased in 2010 to $311.3 billion, or 16.4 percent of total U.S. 

imports.19

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Leading Partners 20

Table 1.1 shows U.S. trade with selected major trading partners, ranked by total trade 

(exports and imports) in 2010.21 The EU as a unit remained the leading global market for 

U.S. exports, but was overtaken by China as the leading source of U.S. imports in 2009, 

continuing into 2010. Canada remained the largest single-country two-way trading 

partner of the United States, followed by China and Mexico. Figures 1.5 and 1.6 show 

leading U.S. export markets and import suppliers, respectively, by share in 2010. 

China alone accounted for 35.8 percent ($278.3 billion) of the total U.S. merchandise 

deficit of $776.5 billion in 2010. North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 

partners Canada and Mexico together accounted for 21.5 percent ($166.8 billion) of this 

deficit. The U.S. trade deficit with China rose from $230.4 billion in 2009 to $278.3 

billion in 2010. U.S. exports to China rose at a faster rate (31.7 percent) than U.S. imports 

from China (23.2 percent) over the 2009–10 period, albeit from a smaller base. 

U.S. Trade in Services in 201022

The U.S. surplus in cross-border private services trade increased 12.8 percent in 2010 to 

$168.0 billion (figure 1.7).23 After declining in 2009, both U.S. exports and imports of 

services partially recovered in 2010, with exports growing at a slightly faster rate than 

imports. U.S. cross-border exports of private services increased 8.8 percent, from $483.9 

billion in 2009 to $526.6 billion in 2010, while U.S. cross-border imports of services 

increased 7.1 percent, from $334.9 billion to $358.6 billion during the same period, with 

2010 imports still less than the level recorded in 2008. Exports and imports increased in 

 19 See chapter 2 of this report for further information on the trade preference programs and chapter 4 for 

information on U.S. FTAs. 20 See chapter 5 for further information on U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners, including 

the EU, Canada, China, Mexico, and other countries. 21 Leading U.S. exports to and imports from these partners are presented in appendix tables A.21 through 

A.50. 22 This section focuses primarily on cross-border transactions in private services, which exclude 

government sales and purchases of services. Services trade data are drawn from the USDOC BEA data. 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. Cross-border transactions appear explicitly as imports and exports in the balance of payments. U.S. 

firms also provide 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 predominantly takes the form 

of cross-border transactions, with students traveling abroad to attend foreign universities. 23 USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 16, 2011, table 3a. Annual 

revisions to the data were released in June 2011. USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts 

Data, June 16, 2011, table 3a. 
1-8 

TABLE 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2010, billions of dollars 

Major trading partner 

U.S. 

exports 

U.S. 

imports 

Trade 

balance 

Two-way trade 

(exports plus 

imports) 

EU-27 217.3 314.9 –97.6 532.2 

Canada 206.0 275.5 –69.6 481.5 

China 85.7 364.0 –278.3 449.8 

Mexico 131.6 228.8 –97.2 360.4 

Japan 55.7 119.9 –64.2 175.7 

Korea 36.8 47.9 –11.1 84.8 

Taiwan 23.9 35.6 –11.7 59.5 

Brazil 30.2 23.4 6.8 53.6 

India 16.4 29.6 –13.2 46.0 

Russia 5.7 25.2 –19.5 30.9 

All others 312.8 433.7 –120.9 746.5 

 World 1,122.1 1,898.6 –776.5 3,020.7 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 

FIGURE 1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2010 

EU, 19%

Canada, 18%

Mexico, 12% Japan, 5% China, 8%

Korea, 3%

Brazil, 3%

Taiwan, 2%

India, 1%

Russia, <1%

All others, 28%

Total = $1,122 billion 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100 percent. 
1-9 

FIGURE 1.6 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2010 

China, 19%

Japan, 6%

Korea, 3%

Taiwan, 2%

India, 2%

Russia, 1%

Brazil, 1%

EU, 17%

Canada, 15%

Mexico, 12%

All others, 23%

Total = $1,899 billion 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100 percent. 

FIGURE 1.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2008–10a

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 16, 2011, table 3a. 

 a

 Data for 2010 are preliminary. 
1-10 

most services categories, with the exception of exports of insurance services and imports 

of financial services, port services, and other services.24 Appendix tables A.2 and A.3 

provide data on U.S. trade in private services by product category. 

U.S. Services Trade by Product Category 

Exports 

Business, professional, and technical services led U.S. cross-border services exports in 

2010, accounting for 24.4 percent of the total, followed by exports of travel services,25

which accounted for 19.6 percent of the total. Exports of most services products 

increased from 2009 to 2010, although exports of insurance services decreased. The U.S. 

property and casualty insurance industry has experienced declining investment returns 

and premiums in most years since 2005, a trend that has depressed industry revenue and 

profits.26 

Unlike 2009, when exports of travel services, passenger fares, port services, and freight 

services saw the biggest declines, these same services (along with two other categories—

business, professional, and technical services, and telecommunications services) 

experienced higher-than-average growth in 2010. For example, exports of port services 

and freight services increased 11.2 and 13.9 percent, respectively, because of higher fuel 

prices, higher freight rates, and larger volumes of U.S. merchandise trade. 27 Travel 

services and passenger fares28 increased 9.8 and 18.4 percent, respectively. Growth of 

travel receipts was driven by an increase in foreigners visiting the United States and a 

corresponding increase in their expenditures.29 

Imports 

Business, professional, and technical services and travel services led U.S. cross-border 

services imports in 2010, accounting for 25.0 percent and 20.8 percent, respectively, of 

the total. U.S. imports in all service categories increased from 2009 to 2010, except for 

financial services, port services, and other services, which declined by 4.0 percent, 7.8 

percent, and 4.8 percent, respectively. Unlike exports, where all categories of services 

that involve the movement of goods or people increased, there was variation on the 

import side. While freight imports increased by 28.3 percent and passenger fares 

increased by 8.1 percent, travel services posted modest growth at 1.9 percent30 and port 

 24 Imports of other services “include mainly expenditures of U.S. residents temporarily working abroad and 

film and television tape rentals.” Exports of other 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 Account Data, March 16, 2011, table 3a. 25 Imports of travel services comprise purchases of goods and services by U.S. persons traveling abroad, 

while exports of travel services comprise such purchases by foreign travelers in the United States. 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. 26 Ernst & Young, “U.S. Property-Casualty Insurance Industry Outlook,” January 2011, 1–4. 27 Scott, “U.S. International Transactions,” January 2011, 34; Scott Thomas and Whitaker, “U.S. 

International Transactions,” October 2010, 66; Scott Thomas, Whitaker, and Yorgason, “U.S. International 

Transactions,” July 2010, 58; Weinberg and Whitaker, “U.S. International Transactions,” April 2010, 30. 28 Fares received by U.S. carriers from foreign residents for travel between the United States and foreign 

countries and between two foreign points. 29 Scott, “U.S. International Transactions,” January 2011, 34. 30 Scott, “U.S. International Transactions,” January 2011, 34. 
1-11 

services, as mentioned above, decreased 7.8 percent.31 Imports of financial services also 

fell, but the decline was modest compared to the previous year. 

U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners 

The EU was the United States’ largest market for both exports and imports of services in 

2010 (table 1.2), accounting for 32.7 percent of total U.S. services exports and 34.4 

percent of total U.S. services imports (figures 1.8 and 1.9).32 Canada and Japan followed 

the EU as the United States’ second- and third-largest services trading partners in 2010. 

The United States maintained a services trade surplus with the EU, although the surplus 

decreased 2.7 percent, from $50.5 billion in 2009 to $49.1 billion in 2010. The United 

States recorded growing bilateral services trade surpluses with Canada, Japan, Mexico, 

Brazil, China, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan between 2009 and 2010.33 By 

contrast, the United States posted a services trade deficit of $3.0 billion with India—a 

deficit that grew 21.4 percent from $2.4 billion in 2009. Although industry-specific data 

by trading partner are not yet available for 2010, the U.S. services trade deficit with India 

over the past several years has been driven by higher imports of computer and data 

processing services; in 2009 the cross-border trade deficit with India for such products 

was $5.3 billion.34 

TABLE 1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2010,a billions of dollars 

Major trading partner 

U.S. 

exports 

U.S. 

imports 

Trade 

balance 

Two-way trade 

(exports plus 

imports) 

EU-27 172.3 123.2 49.1 295.6 

Canada 48.9 24.6 24.2 73.5 

Japan 46.2 24.1 22.0 70.3 

Mexico 23.0 13.7 9.3 36.7 

China 20.1 9.6 10.4 29.7 

India 10.5 13.5 –3.0 24.1 

Korea 15.3 7.7 7.6 23.0 

Brazil 15.6 5.0 10.6 20.5 

Australia 12.9 6.0 6.9 18.9 

Singapore 12.4 3.9 8.5 16.3 

Taiwan 9.5 6.2 3.3 15.6 

All others 139.9 121.0 18.9 261.0 

 World 526.6 358.6 168.0 885.2 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 16, 2011, table 12. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. 

 a Data are preliminary. 

 31 Annual revisions to the data show that imports of port services, along with financial services and other 

services, actually increased between 2009 and 2010 and that insurance services decreased during the same 

time. USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, June 16, 2011, table 3a. 32 In terms of single countries, the United Kingdom (a member of the EU) is the United States’ largest 

export market for and largest import supplier of private services. 33 In addition to these focus countries, Australia and Singapore also ranked as major services trading 

partners. Services exports to Australia were $12.9 billion in 2010, and services imports were $6.0 billion, 

yielding a U.S. services trade surplus of $6.9 billion. Services exports to Singapore were $12.4 billion in 

2010, and services imports were $3.9 billion, yielding a U.S. services trade surplus of $8.5 billion. 34 USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Services, October 2010, 54–5, 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 

Canada, 9%

Japan, 9%

Mexico, 4%

China, 4%

Brazil, 3%

Korea, 3%

Australia, 2%

Singapore, 2%

EU, 33%

India, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

All others, 27%

Total = $527 billion

EU, 34%

Canada, 7%

Japan, 7%

Mexico, 4% China, 3% India, 4%

Korea, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

Australia, 1%

Brazil, 1%

Singapore, 1%

All others, 34%

Total = $357 billion

FIGURE 1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2010a

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 16, 2011, table 12. 

Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100 percent. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

FIGURE 1.9 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2010a

 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 16, 2011, table 12. 

Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100 percent. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 
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 

2010. It covers import relief laws, unfair trade laws, trade adjustment assistance, and 

trade preference programs, including the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, the 

African Growth and Opportunity Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, and the 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. 

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 involving the United 

States. 

The Commission conducted no new safeguard investigations during 2010. Only one 

safeguard measure was in effect during 2010, 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.2

 China challenged the higher U.S. tariffs in a WTO 

dispute settlement case, which is described in chapter 3. 

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.3

 Section 301 may be used to 

enforce U.S. rights under bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and also may be 

used to respond to unreasonable, unjustifiable, or discriminatory foreign government 

practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Interested persons may petition the 

 1

 USITC, Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From China, July 2009. 2

 Proclamation 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

 Section 301 refers to sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411-2420). 
2-2 

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 

settlement, 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; whether they are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory; and 

whether they burden or restrict U.S. commerce. If the practices are determined to violate 

a trade agreement or to be unjustifiable, the USTR must take action.4

 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.5

 The time period for making these determinations varies according to 

the type of practices alleged. 

In 2010, there were two ongoing section 301 cases and one new section 301 petition was 

filed. 

Section 301 Cases in 2010 

One section 301 case concerned the meat hormone directive of the European Union 

(EU).6

 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 the 

EU law that bans imports of meat from animals that have been treated with certain 

hormones. 7 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).8

 Under the MOU, the EU agreed to open a duty-free tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for 

beef produced without growth-promoting hormones (i.e., “High Quality Beef”)9

 in the 

amount of 20,000 metric tons,10 and the United States agreed to reduce the scope of the 

retaliation list.11 The remaining additional duties continued in effect during 2010.12

In a related development, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in 2010 that 

the additional duties imposed in the beef hormone dispute were terminated by operation 

of law on July 29, 2007.13 The Court so ruled because neither the petitioner in the meat 

hormone case nor any representative of the domestic beef industry submitted a written 

 4

 Section 301(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411(a)). 5

 Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411(b)). 6

 EU Meat Hormone Directive, 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/contaminants/hormones/index_en.htm. 7

 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. 8 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. 9

 Article VI of the U.S.-EU Beef MOU defines “High Quality Beef.” 10 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Art. II(1). 

11 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Art. II(3); 74 Fed. Reg. 40864 (August 13, 2009). 12 The additional duties are provided for in subheadings 9903.02.21 through 9903.02.83 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). 13 Gilda v. U.S., No. 2009-1492 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2010). 
2-3 

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 1974.14

The second active 301 case concerned the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement between 

the United States and Canada (2006 SLA).15 Under the 2006 SLA, Canada agreed to 

impose export measures on certain Canadian exports of softwood lumber to the United 

States. In March 2008, an arbitral tribunal found that Canada had not complied with its 

obligations under the 2006 SLA,16 and in February 2009, the arbitral tribunal issued an 

award on the remedy to be applied.17 In accordance with the award, the USTR initiated a 

301 investigation in April 2009 and determined that the United States would impose 

additional 10 percent duties on certain imports of softwood lumber from the provinces of 

Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.18 In response to the U.S. action, Canada 

adopted a law in 2010 that imposed a 10 percent export duty on the subject softwood 

lumber exports, thereby complying with its obligations under the 2006 SLA. 

Accordingly, the USTR decided to terminate the imposition of the added import duties.19

Lastly, in September 2010, the United Steelworkers Union filed a section 301 petition 

with the USTR 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 1994, China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO, and the WTO Agreement on 

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.20 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.”21 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.22 

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.23

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 

 14 Gilda v. U.S., No. 2009-1492 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2010). 15 Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of Canada, signed September 12, 2006. 16 U.S. v. Canada, Case No. 7941, London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Award on Liability 

(March 3, 2008). 17 U.S. v. Canada, Case No. 7941, LCIA, Award on Remedies (February 23, 2009). 18 74 Fed. Reg. 16436 (April 10, 2009). The additional duties are provided for in subheading 9903.53.01 of 

the HTS. 19 75 Fed. Reg. 53014 (August 30, 2010). For more information on the softwood lumber dispute, see the 

section on Canada in chapter 5. 20 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”). 21 China Green Technologies petition, 7. 22 China Green Technologies petition, 9. 23 75 Fed. Reg. 64776 (October 20, 2010). 
2-4 

known as the Special Fund for Wind Power Manufacturing, which appears to provide 

actionable subsidies to Chinese wind power equipment manufacturers.24

Special 301 

The Special 301 law25 requires that each year, the USTR must 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.26 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.”27

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 practices that violate 

international agreements or that constitute discriminatory nontariff trade barriers.28 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 Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).29

In addition, the Special 301 law directs the USTR to identify and list so-called priority 

foreign countries.30 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 entering into good-faith negotiations or making significant 

progress in bilateral or international 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. 

In addition to 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. A country that is identified on the 

priority watch list may make progress and be moved to the watch list or removed from 

 24 USTR, United States Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Consultations on China’s Subsidies for Wind 

Power Equipment Manufacturers (December 22, 2010). For more information, see chapter 3 section on WTO 

dispute settlement. 25 The Special 301 law is set forth in section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242). 26 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)). 27 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.” 28 Section 182(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(d)(3)). 

29 Section 182(d)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(d)(4)). 30 Section 182(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(a)(2)). 
2-5 

any listing. Alternatively, a country that fails to make progress may be elevated from the 

watch list to the priority watch list, or from the priority watch list to the list of priority 

foreign countries. 

In the 2010 Special 301 review, the USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness of 

IPR protection in 77 countries.31 In conducting the review, the USTR focused on a wide 

range of issues and policy objectives relating to IPR protection and enforcement, 

including the need for more IPR training, resources, and prosecutions; significantly 

improved enforcement against counterfeiting and piracy; Internet and digital piracy; 

counterfeit pharmaceuticals; transshipment of pirated and counterfeit goods; ensuring that 

foreign government ministries only use legally authorized and properly licensed business 

software; and proper implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developed and 

developing countries. 

In the 2010 Special 301 review, no countries were identified as priority foreign countries. 

The 2010 Special 301 report identified 11 countries on the priority watch list and 

highlighted weak IPR protection and enforcement in China and Russia, both of which 

were maintained on the priority watch list. In addition, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, 

India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela were kept on the priority watch list 

due to significant concerns regarding IPR protection. While 29 countries remained on the 

watch list, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were removed because they had 

made significant progress on the protection and enforcement of IPR. 

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.32 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 

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.33 The antidumping duty is 

calculated to equal the difference between the U.S. price and the foreign-market value.34

 31 USTR, “USTR Releases 2010 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights and 2010 Special 301 

Report,” April 30, 2010. 32 19 U.S.C. 1673 et seq. 

33 19 U.S.C. 1677b; 19 C.F.R. part 353, subpart D. 

34 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(A). 
2-6 

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. 35 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.36 

The Commission instituted three new antidumping investigations and completed 19 

investigations during 2010.37 Antidumping duties were imposed in 2010 as a result of 

affirmative Commission determinations in 17 of those completed investigations on 11 

products from 5 countries (table 2.1). 

Details on all antidumping investigations active at the Commission during 2010 are 

presented in appendix table A.4. A list of all antidumping duty orders, including 

suspension agreements,38 in effect as of the end of the year is presented in appendix table 

A.5. 

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.39 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 

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 2 new countervailing duty investigations and completed 11 

during 2010. Countervailing duties were imposed in 2010 as a result of affirmative 

Commission determinations in 10 of those 11 completed investigations on 9 products 

from 3 countries (table 2.2). 

 35 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(B); 19 U.S.C. 1673d(c). 

36 19 U.S.C. 1675(a). 

37 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. 38 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 eliminate completely the injurious effect of exports of the 

subject merchandise to the United States. A suspended investigation is reinstituted if LTFV sales recur. See 

19 U.S.C. 1673c. 39 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). 
2-7 

TABLE 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2010 

Country Product 

Range of duty 

(percent) 

China Coated paper 7.62–135.84 

China Magnesia carbon bricks 128.10–236.00 

China Narrow woven ribbons 123.83–247.65 

China Oil country tubular goods 32.07–99.14 

China Potassium phosphate salts 62.23–95.40 

China Prestressed concrete steel wire strand 42.97–193.55 

China Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe 50.01–98.74 

China Seamless refined copper pipe and tube 11.25–60.85 

China Steel grating 136.76–145.18 

China Woven electric blankets 93.09–174.85 

Indonesia Coated paper 20.13 

Indonesia Polyethylene retail carrier bags 69.64–85.17 

Mexico Magnesia carbon bricks 57.90 

Mexico Seamless refined copper pipe and tube 24.89–27.16 

Taiwan Narrow woven ribbons 4.37 

Taiwan Polyethylene retail carrier bags 36.54–95.81 

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags 52.30–76.11 

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices. 

TABLE 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2010 

Country Product 

Range of duty 

(percent) 

China Coated paper 17.94 

China Magnesia carbon bricks 24.24–253.87 

China Narrow woven ribbons 1.56–117.95 

China Oil country tubular goods 10.49–15.78 

China Potassium phosphate salts 109.11 

China Prestressed concrete steel wire strand 9.42–45.85 

China Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe 13.66–56.67 

China Steel grating 62.46 

Indonesia Coated paper 17.94 

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags 0.44 (de minimis)–52.56 

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices. 

Details on all countervailing duty investigations active at the Commission during 2010 

are presented in appendix table A.6, and a list of all countervailing duty orders (including 

suspension agreements)40 in effect at the end of the year is presented in appendix table 

A.7. 

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 

determine the amount of any net subsidy or dumping margin and to determine 

 40 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 agrees 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 eliminate completely the injurious effect of 

exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. A suspended investigation is reinstituted if 

subsidization recurs. See 19 U.S.C. 1671c. 
2-8 

compliance with suspension agreements.41 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.42

In these circumstances, 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 

sufficiently 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 2010. 

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.43 During 2010, the USDOC and the 

Commission instituted 73 sunset reviews of existing antidumping duty and countervailing 

duty orders and suspension agreements44 and the Commission completed 32 reviews. As 

a result, 31 antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders were continued for five 

additional years. Appendix table A.8 shows completed reviews of antidumping duty and 

countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in 2010.45

Section 337 Investigations 

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,46 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.47

 41 19 U.S.C. 1675(a). 

42 19 U.S.C. 1675(b). 

43 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 

44 A total of 15 of the instituted reviews (14 antidumping duty reviews and 1 countervailing duty review) 

were subsequently terminated and the outstanding orders/findings revoked because a domestic industry did 

not request that they be continued. The 14 revoked antidumping duty orders/findings were as follows: forged 

stainless steel flanges from India and Taiwan; granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Japan; greige 

polyester cotton printcloth from China; natural bristle paint brushes from China; non-frozen apple juice 

concentrate from China; polychloroprene rubber from Japan; porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from Taiwan; 

sparklers from China; stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan; superalloy 

degassed chromium from Japan; and top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware from Korea. The one 

revoked countervailing duty order was on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware from Korea. The 

review concerning the antidumping duty order on U.S. imports of natural bristle paint brushes from China 

was terminated and the outstanding order revoked because USDOC found in a changed-circumstances review 

that domestic parties expressed a lack of interest in antidumping duty relief from imports of the subject 

merchandise. 45 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. 46 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

47 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 
2-9 

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 

parties to stop engaging in the unlawful practices. The orders enter into force unless 

disapproved for “policy reasons” by the USTR48 within 60 days of issuance.49

During 2010, there were 108 active section 337 investigations and ancillary proceedings, 

63 of which were instituted in 2010. Of these 63, 56 were new section 337 investigations 

and seven were new ancillary proceedings relating to previously concluded 

investigations. In all but two of the new section 337 institutions in 2010, patent 

infringement was the only type of unfair act alleged. The two exceptions were one 

investigation involving alleged copyright, trademark, and patent infringement,50 and one 

investigation involving alleged misappropriation of trade secrets as well as patent 

infringement.51 

The Commission completed a total of 50 investigations and ancillary proceedings under 

section 337 in 2010, including three enforcement proceedings, one bond forfeiture 

proceeding, one sanctions proceeding, and two advisory proceedings. Seven exclusion 

orders, including one general exclusion order, and 20 cease and desist orders were issued 

during 2010. The Commission terminated 30 investigations without determining whether 

there had been a violation. Twenty-three of these investigations were terminated on the 

basis of settlement agreements and/or consent orders. 

Approximately two-thirds of the active investigations in 2010 concerned products in the 

semiconductor, telecommunications, and electronics fields—e.g., cellular smartphones, 

liquid crystal displays, set-top boxes, biometric scanning devices, and flash memory 

chips. Other investigations involved commercial equipment such as underground pipe 

locators and automated media library systems. Another group of section 337 

investigations active during the year focused on a variety of consumer items, ranging 

from inkjet cartridges to ground fault circuit interrupters to caskets. 

At the close of 2010, 58 section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending 

at the Commission. Commission activities involving section 337 actions in 2010 are 

presented in table A.9. As of December 31, 2010, exclusion orders based on violations of 

section 337 were in effect for 79 investigations. Table A.10 lists the investigations in 

which these exclusion orders were issued. 

 

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. 48 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). 49 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. 50 Certain Lighting Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-719. 51 Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698.
2-10 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

The United States provides trade adjustment assistance (TAA) to aid U.S. workers, 

farmers, firms and industries, and communities adversely affected by import competition 

or by shifts of U.S. production to foreign countries. 52 The TAA programs were 

reauthorized, amended, and expanded in 2009.53 Those expanded provisions expired on 

February 12, 2011, and the TAA programs reverted from the expanded program to the 

program in effect before the 2009 amendments.54

In 2010, TAA comprised the following programs: TAA for Workers, TAA for Firms, 

TAA for Farmers, and TAA for Communities. These programs are described separately 

below. 

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 to eligible workers, including job 

training, income support, job search and relocation allowances, a tax credit to help pay 

the costs of health insurance, and a wage supplement to certain reemployed trade-affected 

workers 50 years of age and older.55

Two key changes were introduced by the 2009 amendments to the TAA for Workers 

program: (1) TAA coverage was expanded to more U.S. workers and firms, including 

workers and firms in the service sector (as opposed to covering just workers in the 

manufacturing sector), and (2) benefits were made available to U.S. workers whose jobs 

had been offshored to any country without regard to whether there was an increase in 

total U.S. imports (as opposed to covering a more limited set of shifts in U.S. 

production).56 As noted above, the expanded provisions were in effect throughout 2010, 

but expired on February 12, 2011, when the TAA program reverted to the program in 

effect before the 2009 amendments.57

 52 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 program 

was 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. Economic 

Report of the President, 2009, box 8-2, 232–33; Topoleski, “TAA for Workers,” February 20, 2008. 53 President Obama signed the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA) on 

February 17, 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5). This 

legislation reauthorized and changed certain provisions of the TAA programs for workers, firms, and farmers 

beginning in May 18, 2009, and created the TAA for Communities program. For additional information on 

the amendments introduced by the TGAAA, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, July 2010, 2-2. 54 On December 29, 2010, the President signed the Omnibus Trade Act of 2010. Among other things, the 

act extended certain 2009 TGAAA amendments that were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010, 

through February 12, 2011. The TGAAA subsequently lapsed on February 12, 2011. USTR, 2011 Trade 

Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 178. 55 USDOL, ETA, Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers, December 2010, 2–3. 56 USDOL, ETA, Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers, December 2010, 2–3. 57 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 178. A description of the 

expanded benefits and services that were available under the 2009 TAA for Workers program (generally 

available between May 18, 2009, and February 12, 2011) is provided in USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, 

July 2010, 2-2 to 2-3. For a description of the benefits and services that were available under original 2002 

amendments to the TAA program (and thus were still available after February 12, 2011), see USITC, The 
2-11 

ETA reported that it received 2,222 petitions58 for TAA in fiscal year (FY) 2010,59 a 

sharp decline from 4,549 petitions for TAA filed in FY 2009. According to ETA, the 

2009 expansion of TAA coverage for service sector workers, as well as the effects of the 

U.S. economic recession, led to a significant increase in petitions filed in FY 2009.60

ETA certified 2,718 petitions eligible for TAA during FY 2010, up from 1,845 petitions 

certified in FY 2009. According to ETA, the larger number of certifications in FY 2010 

in part reflected the larger number of petitions filed during FY 2009.61 ETA estimated 

that 280,873 workers were covered by certified petitions for TAA in FY 2010, while an 

estimated 80,074 workers were covered under petitions that were denied. Petitions were 

certified for workers in all 50 states and in Puerto Rico; no petitions were certified for 

workers in the District of Columbia. The most petitions were certified for California 

(225), Ohio (221), and Pennsylvania (208). The largest numbers of workers covered by 

certified petitions were in Michigan (34,866), Ohio (25,263), and California (20,571). 

More than 80 percent of the workers covered by certified petitions for TAA in FY 2010 

were in the manufacturing sector, and almost 30 percent of the workers covered by 

certified petitions were the result of a shift in production (i.e., outsourcing). The most 

common reason for certifying petitions for service sector workers was also outsourcing: 

594 petitions covering 29,546 workers were certified due to a shift in the supply of 

services to a foreign country, while 214 petitions covering 12,022 workers were certified 

due to the acquisition of services from a foreign country.62

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 assistance and cash benefits to eligible U.S. producers of raw 

agricultural commodities and fishermen whose crops or catch have been adversely 

affected by imports of like or directly competitive commodities. 63 The 2009 

reauthorization of the TAA for Farmers program authorized appropriations for the 2009 

 

Year in Trade 2003, July 2004, 2-3 to 2-4. The most current information on benefits and services available 

under the TAA for Workers program is available from USDOL at http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/. 58 For a worker to be eligible to apply for TAA, the worker must be part of a group of workers that file 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. Each worker in the 

group must then individually apply for TAA services and benefits. USDOL, ETA, “Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Petition Process,” February 14, 2011. 59 FY 2010 covers the period October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. 

60 USDOL, ETA, Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers, December 2010, 9. 61 The number of petitions certified for TAA in any fiscal year may not necessarily total the number of 

petitions filed in that year because of the processing time for petitions (which may span more than one fiscal 

year), the withdrawal of some petitions, and the termination of investigations. In addition, “for FY 2009 

trade-affected workers were provided an opportunity to withdraw petitions filed under the old law and re-file 

after the effective date of the 2009 amendments. In addition, the backlog created by this withdrawal and refiling, as well as increased interest in the program under expanded eligibility, resulted in a backlog in Fiscal 

Year 2009 that was not resolved until Fiscal Year 2010.” USDOL, ETA, 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, 9. 62 USDOL, ETA, 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, 11–12. 63 USDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March 14, 2010, 1. 
2-12 

and 2010 fiscal years, and for the period beginning October 1, 2010 through December 

31, 2010.64

USDA reported that it received 17 petitions65 for TAA in FY 2010,66 and approved 3 

petitions on behalf of U.S. asparagus and catfish producers nationwide, as well as U.S. 

shrimp producers in the Gulf and South Atlantic region. As a result of these certifications, 

more than 5,000 producers applied for training and cash benefits under the FY 2010 

program.67 

USDA launched its FY 2011 TAA for Farmers program on May 21, 2010.68 It received 

33 petitions for assistance, and it certified 3 petitions on behalf of blueberry producers in 

Maine, lobster producers in five northeastern states, and shrimp producers in Alaska and 

nine Gulf and South Atlantic states in September 2010. Nearly 6,000 producers applied 

for training and cash benefits for the period beginning October 1, 2010, and ending 

December 31, 2010.69

Assistance for Firms 

The TAA for Firms program is administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(USDOC) through the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The program 

provides financial assistance to U.S. manufacturers adversely affected by imports, by 

providing matching funds to help eligible firms offset the costs of projects aimed at 

improving their competitive positions. The TAA for Firms program was modified and 

expanded in 2009,70 most notably by offering service industry firms the opportunity to 

apply for TAA and by allowing firms applying for assistance to use a longer retrospective 

period to demonstrate their eligibility for benefits. Those modifications expired on 

 64 As discussed above, subsequent legislation extended the program through February 12, 2011. The TAA 

for Farmers program originally was in effect from October 1, 2002, through December 31, 2007, when 

funding for the program expired. The TAA for Farmers program was reauthorized and modified by the Trade 

and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA) on February 17, 2009, as part of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5). A description of benefits and services 

available under the TAA for Farmers program is provided in USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, July 2010, 2-3 

to 2-4. The most current information on the TAA for Farmers program is available from USDA, FAS, 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/taa.asp. 65 To become eligible for benefits, a group of three or more producers or a commodity organization, acting 

on behalf of producers in their state or group of states, may request that a commodity be certified as eligible 

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. FAS initiates an investigation after it accepts a petition for review. On completing its investigation, 

FAS announces whether the commodity has been “certified” (approved for benefits) and the marketing year 

for which the certification is valid. USDA, FAS, “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers,” March 

2010. 66 USDA did not provide technical assistance or provide payments to farmers or fishermen during FY 2009. 

All FY 2009 outlays were administrative costs associated with running the program. USTR, 2011 Trade 

Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 179. 67 USDA, FAS, “Notice to Program Participants,” April 4, 2011; USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 

2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 179. 68 For the USDA notice of acceptance of petitions for TAA for Farmers for FY 2010, see 75 Fed. Reg. 

11513 (March 11, 2010). 69 USDA, FAS, “Notice to Program Participants,” April 4, 2011; USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 

2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 179. 70 The TAA for Firms program was modified and expanded by the Trade and Globalization Adjustment 

Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA) on February 17, 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5). For additional information on the amendments introduced by the TGAAA, see 

USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, July 2010, 2-4 to 2-5. 
2-13 

February 12, 2011, and the TAA for Firms program reverted from the expanded program 

to the program in effect before the 2009 amendments.71 

EDA reported that it particularly targeted small and medium-sized firms in FY 2010.72 It 

received 305 petitions73 for TAA in FY 2010, compared to 278 petitions received in FY 

2009. EDA certified 330 petitions, up from 164 petitions in FY 2009; no petitions were 

denied in FY 2010.74 Approximately 91 percent of the petitions certified for TAA were 

for manufacturing firms; of the remainder, about 50 percent were for wholesale firms. 

The most petitions were certified for firms in Pennsylvania (48), Massachusetts (27), 

New York (25), and Illinois (23).75

Assistance for Communities 

The Community TAA (TAA for Communities) program was launched in January 201076

to provide grants to assist U.S. communities that have experienced, or were threatened 

by, job loss resulting from international trade. Grants under the program could be used to 

support a wide range of technical, planning, and infrastructure projects to help 

communities adapt to trade impact issues and diversify their economies. Funding for the 

program was made available through September 30, 2010, although grants under the 

program could cover projects lasting as long as three years.77

TAA for Communities is administered by the USDOC through the EDA.78 To be eligible 

to apply, communities were to have been previously certified under the TAA for 

Workers, TAA for Farmers, or TAA for Firms programs. In addition, EDA had to 

determine that the community was significantly impacted by foreign trade. 79 EDA 

 71 USDOC, EDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms” (accessed June 1, 2011). Additional 

information on the TAA for Firms program is provided in USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, July 2010, 2-4 to 

2-5. The most current information on the TAA for Firms program is available from USDOC, EDA, 

http://www.eda.gov/Research/TradeAdj.xml and http://www.taacenters.org/index.html. 72 USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress, December 2010, 39. 73 To become eligible for benefits, firms must submit a petition to USDOC through one 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 closely with firm management to identify the firm’s 

strengths and weaknesses and develop a customized adjustment proposal designed to stimulate recovery and 

growth. After an adjustment proposal has been approved, company management and TAAC staff jointly 

identify consultants with the specific expertise required to assist the firm. Funds are not provided directly to 

firms; instead, the EDA funds the TAACs and the TAACs pay a cost-shared proportion of the cost to secure 

the identified specialized business consultants. USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress, December 2010, 

2–3. 74 The number of petitions certified for TAA in any fiscal year may not necessarily total the number of 

petitions accepted in that year because of the processing time for petitions (which may span more than one 

fiscal year) or the withdrawal of petitions. USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress, December 2010, 6. 75 USDOC, EDA, Annual Report to Congress, December 2010, 10. 76 The TAA for Communities program was established by the Trade and Globalization Adjustment 

Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA) on February 17, 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5). See also 76 Fed. Reg. 4612 (January 26, 2011). For additional information on 

the amendments introduced by the TGAAA, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, July 2010, 2-5. 77 “$36,768,000 is available for the Community TAA Program and shall remain available until September 

30, 2010, which means that EDA must obligate all funds to particular projects by that date.” EDA, 

“Community Trade Adjustment Assistance Program: Frequently Asked Questions,” 9–10, March 4, 2010. 

Additional information on the TAA for Communities program is provided in USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, 

July 2010, 2-5 to 2-6. The most current information on the TAA for Communities program is available from 

USDOC, EDA, http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/CommunityTAA.xml. 78 USDOC, EDA, “Community Trade Adjustment Assistance: Program Overview,” n.d. (accessed June 1, 

2011). 79 USDOC, EDA, “Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity,” n.d. (accessed June 1, 2011). 
2-14 

established a single competition for the TAA for Communities program, with the 

deadline to submit a full grant application of April 20, 2010 to be eligible for an award of 

funding. 

EDA reported that more than 130 applicants applied for assistance under the TAA for 

Communities program, requesting $156 million dollars for a variety of projects. The full 

amount of funds available for assistance was awarded on a competitive basis to 36 

communities.80

Tariff Preference Programs 

Generalized System of Preferences 

The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (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. Certain additional products are allowed 

duty-free treatment when imported only from countries designated as least-developed 

beneficiary developing countries (LDBDCs). The President’s authority to provide dutyfree treatment under the GSP program expired on December 31, 2010.81 

The program is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.82 By offering 

unilateral tariff preferences, the GSP program aims to accelerate economic growth in 

developing countries. 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 ensures that U.S. companies 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. 83 

Countries are designated as “beneficiary developing countries” under the GSP program 

by the President, although countries can be removed from this designation based on 

petitions alleging improper country practices, including inadequate protection of 

intellectual property rights or internationally recognized worker rights. The President also 

designates the articles that are eligible for duty-free treatment, but may not designate 

articles that he determines to be “import-sensitive” 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” countries 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) waiver 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.84

 80 76 Fed. Reg. 4612 (January 26, 2011). 

81 Pub. L. 111-124. 

82 19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq. 

83 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 181. 84 19 U.S.C. 2463(d)(4)(B)(ii). 
2-15 

The U.S. GSP program made several changes with respect to product and country 

eligibility in 2010: 

 On June 29, 2010, a number of changes were proclaimed based on the 2009 GSP 

Annual Product Review.85 Two products that could previously only be imported 

duty-free from least-developed GSP countries were designated as GSP-eligible 

for all GSP beneficiaries. 86 A number of products were excluded because 

imports exceeded CNLs; and one product87 that had previously received a CNL 

waiver had that waiver revoked because imports exceeded the “supercompetitive” threshold.88

 As of January 1, 2010, the Republic of the Maldives was added to the list of GSP 

beneficiaries; Cape Verde was removed from the LDBDC list, but remains a GSP 

beneficiary; and Trinidad and Tobago was removed from GSP eligibility based 

on high national income. On January 1, 2011, Croatia and Equatorial Guinea 

were removed from the list of GSP beneficiaries based on high income.89 

Duty-free imports entered under the GSP program totaled $22.6 billion in 2010, 

accounting for 7.7 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries and 1.2 

percent of total imports (table 2.3).90 Thailand was the leading GSP beneficiary in 2010, 

followed by Angola, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Equatorial Guinea. Almost one-fourth 

of all duty-free entries under the GSP were petroleum products, compared with nearly a 

third in 2009. Petroleum products only enter free of duty under the GSP when imported 

from LDBDCs, including Angola and Equatorial Guinea. (As noted, Equatorial Guinea 

ceased to be a GSP beneficiary as of January 1, 2011). Appendix table A.11 shows the 

top 20 products imported under the GSP in 2010, and appendix table A.12 shows the 

overall distribution of GSP benefits by sector. 

African Growth and Opportunity Act 

The 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 market access to 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 

 85 USTR, Results of the 2009 GSP Annual Review, n.d. 86 The two products were frozen vegetables—specifically, HTS 0710.22.40 (beans, not elsewhere specified 

or included, uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, reduced in size (green beans, lima 

beans, misc.)); and HTS 0710.90.91 (mixtures of vegetables not elsewhere specified or included, uncooked or 

cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen). 87 HTS 7113.19.25 (gold mixed-link necklaces and neck chains from India). 88 Proclamation No. 8539 of June 29, 2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 38905 (July 6, 2010). The CNLs require the 

termination of a beneficiary developing country’s GSP eligibility on a product if, during any calendar year, 

U.S. imports from that country: (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. 89 Proclamation No. 8467 of December 23, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 69221 (December 30, 2009). 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, 21. The USTR’s 2008 report is the last of eight annual reports required under AGOA. 92 Should GSP lapse, AGOA preferences remain in effect. 
2-16 

TABLE 2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries and the world, 2010, millions of dollars

Item 

All GSP

beneficiaries World

Total U.S. imports 293,095 1,888,005

 Imports of products that are not GSP eligible 249,389 1,043,182

 Imports of products that are GSP eligiblea

 43,706 844,823

 Imports of products that are GSP eligible from all GSP beneficiariesb

 29,009 370,040

 Imports of products that are only GSP eligible from LDBDCsc

 14,697 474,784

 

Total GSP duty free imports 22,554 22,554

 Non-LDBDC GSP duty free 17,098 17,098

 GSP LDBDC duty free 5,455 5,455

 

Total of GSP eligible products not benefiting from GSP duty-free treatment d

 21,152 822,269

 GSP program exclusions 6,999 6,999

 All other 14,153 815,270

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Customs-value basis; excludes imports from the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

 a Includes imports from all beneficiary countries for the articles that are designated as eligible articles under GSP. b 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, while 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. 

 c LDBDC-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. 

 d

 For a variety of reasons, all imports from beneficiary countries under HTS provisions that appear to be eligible for 

GSP treatment do not always and necessarily receive duty-free entry under the GSP. Such eligible imports may not 

receive duty-free treatment under GSP for one or more of at least five different reasons: (1) the importers fail to claim 

GSP benefits affirmatively; (2) the goods are from a GSP beneficiary that lost GSP benefits on that product for 

exceeding the so-called competitive need limits; (3) the goods are from a GSP beneficiary country that lost GSP 

benefits on that product because of a petition to remove that country from GSP for that product or because of some 

other action by the President or USTR; (4) the GSP beneficiary country may claim duty-free treatment under some 

other program or provision of the HTS; and (5) the good fails to meet the rule of origin or direct shipment requirement 

of the GSP statute. 

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 2010, articles entering the United States free of duty under AGOA were valued at 

$38.7 billion, a 37.8 percent increase over 2009, and accounted for 63.9 percent of all 

imports from AGOA countries (table 2.4). This increase in total imports was driven 

primarily by an increase in the value and quantity of imports of petroleum-related 

products.94 Duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA, including under the GSP program, 

were valued at $44.3 billion in 2010, accounting for 73.1 percent of total imports from 

AGOA countries and representing an increase of 31.3 percent over 2009. 

The leading suppliers of duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA in 2010 were Nigeria (65.1 

percent of total AGOA imports), Angola (16.3 percent), the Republic of the Congo (5.0 

 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). 94 Although petroleum products enter duty-free under GSP only for LDBDCs, the duty-free preference for 

petroleum products extends to all AGOA beneficiaries. 
2-17 

TABLE 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA countries, 2008–10 

Item 2008 2009 2010

Total imports from AGOA countries (millions of $) 81,438 43,950 60,531

 Total under AGOA, including GSP (millions of $)a 66,259 33,709 44,270

 Imports under AGOA, excluding GSP (millions of $) 56,374 28,050 38,665

Total under AGOA as a percent of total 69.2 63.8 63.9

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. 

percent), South Africa (4.9 percent), Chad (3.1 percent), and Gabon (2.9 percent). These 

six countries accounted for 97.2 percent of total imports by value under AGOA; for all 

six, this represented a slight increase over 2009 (appendix table A.13). Of the leading 

imports under AGOA, petroleum-related products increased to $36.0 billion in 2010, up 

41.3 percent by value from 2009, and accounted for 93.1 percent of the total value of 

AGOA imports in 2010, an increase over 2009 (appendix table A.14).95 Imports of 

apparel declined in 2010, from $0.9 billion, or 3.3 percent of total AGOA imports by 

value in 2009, to approximately $0.7 billion, or 1.9 percent, in 2010. 

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 2010, a total of 38 SSA 

countries were designated as eligible for AGOA benefits, and 26 SSA countries were 

eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits.98 On January 1, 2010, Mauritania’s 

designation as an AGOA beneficiary country was reinstated and Guinea’s, Madagascar’s, 

and Niger’s AGOA designations were terminated.99 The Democratic Republic of the 

Congo became ineligible for AGOA benefits effective January 1, 2011.100

Section 105 of AGOA requires the President to establish the U.S.-SSA Trade and 

Economic Cooperation Forum (also known as the AGOA forum). AGOA also requires 

the USTR and the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and the Treasury to host meetings 

with senior-level officials from governments of countries that are eligible for AGOA 

benefits to discuss their trade, investment, and development relationships. The ninth 

AGOA forum was held in two parts: the ministerial plenary sessions on August 2–3, 

2010, in Washington, DC, and a trade and investment promotion event on August 4–6, 

 95 The increase in imports of petroleum and related products primarily reflects increasing prices. Whereas 

petroleum import volumes (HS chapter 27, barrels) from the five leading AGOA petroleum suppliers 

(Nigeria, Angola, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, and Chad) increased by 9 percent between 2009 and 

2010, the value of these imports increased by more than 41 percent. Official statistics of the U.S. Department 

of Commerce (DataWeb) (accessed March 2, 2011). 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, 21–22. 98 The following 38 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, the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau , Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, 

Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, 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 2010, December 31, 2010, 187. 99 White House, “Presidential Proclamation—To Take Certain Actions under the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act,” December 23, 2009. 74 Fed. Reg. 69221 (December 30, 2009). 100 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). 
2-18 

2010, in Kansas City, Missouri. The Kansas City portion provided for meetings with 

U.S. and African business leaders as well as site visits to U.S. agribusinesses in the area. 

The theme of the forum was “New Strategies for a Changing World.”101

Andean Trade Preference Act 

The 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 products broader access to the U.S. market.102 The act has 

had a complex history. The President’s authority to provide preferential treatment under 

ATPA 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 2002.103

The President’s authority to provide preferential treatment under ATPA, as amended by 

ATPDEA, has expired several times, 104 and two countries (Bolivia and Peru) have been 

removed from eligibility in recent years. Most recently, the President’s authority to 

provide preferential treatment under ATPA was set to expire on December 31, 2010, but 

on December 24, 2010, it was extended through February 12, 2011, for Colombia and 

Ecuador only.105 Peru’s eligibility was not renewed on December 24 because of the 

implementation of the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), and Bolivia lost its 

eligibility on December 15, 2008, for failing to meet ATPA’s counternarcotics 

cooperation criteria.106 

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), 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 three ATPA-eligible countries—

Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru—were valued at $28.2 billion in 2010, an increase of 36.2 

 101 “Ninth AGOA Forum,” http://www.agoa.gov (accessed March 14, 2011). For more information, see 

USDOC, ITA, African Growth and Opportunity Act web site, 

http://www.agoa.gov/agoa_forum/agoa_forum9.html. 102 For a more detailed description of ATPA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC, Impact 

of the Andean Trade Preference Act, 2010. 103 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). 104 Pub. L. 109-432, sect. 7001 et seq.; Pub. L. 110-42; Pub. L. 110-191; Pub. L. 110-436; and Pub. L. 111-

124, sect. 2. 105 Pub. L. 111-344, sect. 201. ATPA was allowed to expire on February 12, 2011, and had not been 

extended as of July 15, 2011. 106 Proclamation No. 8323, 73 Fed. Reg. 72677 (November 25, 2008). 
2-19 

percent from $20.7 billion in 2009 (table 2.5). U.S. imports under ATPA rose 48.3 

percent in 2010 to $14.4 billion, which represented 51.1 percent of all imports from 

ATPA countries. U.S. imports under ATPDEA accounted for 89.9 percent of imports 

under ATPA in 2010 ($13.0 billion) and U.S. imports under the original ATPA (ATPA 

excluding ATPDEA) accounted for the remaining 10.1 percent, valued at $1.5 billion. 

In 2010, U.S. imports under ATPA from Colombia and Ecuador increased substantially, 

while imports under ATPA from Peru fell as Peru shifted more of its exports to the 

United States from entry under ATPA to entry under the U.S.-Peru TPA (appendix table 

A.15). As in 2009, Colombia was the largest source of U.S. imports under ATPA in 

2010. Imports from Colombia under ATPA increased 69.5 percent in value during 2010, 

mainly because of higher petroleum prices and higher shipments of light crude oil. 

Petroleum and petroleum products accounted for 86.2 percent of U.S. imports under 

ATPA in 2010 and represented 5 of the top 25 U.S. imports under the program (appendix 

table A.16). Fresh cut flowers was the next-largest category of imports under ATPA, 

accounting for 4.8 percent of such imports and 5 of the 25 leading imports under ATPA. 

Other leading imports under ATPA in 2010 included apparel and pouched tuna. 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

The 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. 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. 107 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 previously excluded from CBERA, including 

certain tuna, petroleum and petroleum derivatives, certain footwear, watches and watch 

parts assembled from parts originating in countries not eligible for normal trade relations 

(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 and above-quota imports of certain agricultural products 

subject to tariff-rate quotas (primarily sugar, beef, and dairy products). Certain CBTPA 

preferential treatment provisions were scheduled to expire on September 30, 2010, but 

were extended through September 30, 2020;108 other parts of CBERA have no expiration 

date. In the discussions that follow, the term CBERA refers to CBERA as amended by 

the CBTPA. 

 107 Textiles and apparel not subject to textile agreements in 1983 (textiles and apparel of silk or noncotton 

vegetable fibers, mainly linen and ramie) are eligible for duty-free entry under original CBERA provisions, 

which do not have an expiration date. 108 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 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. 
2-20 

TABLE 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2008–10 

Item 2008a 2009 2010

Total imports from ATPA countries (millions of $) 28,483 20,690 28,179

 Total under ATPA (millions of $) 17,243 9,714 14,411

 Imports under ATPDEA (millions of $)b 14,570 8,063 12,960

 Imports under ATPA, excluding ATPDEA (millions of $)c 2,672 1,652 1,451

Total under ATPA as a percent of total 60.5 47.0 51.1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

 a

 Includes data for Bolivia for 2008. Bolivia’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country was suspended effective 

December 15, 2008. 

 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. 

In 2010, 18 countries and territories were eligible for nonexpiring CBERA preferences,109

and 8 were eligible for CBTPA preferences.110 U.S. imports under CBERA increased by 

22.6 percent, from $2.4 billion in 2009 to $2.9 billion in 2010 (table 2.6).111 This increase 

reflected substantial increases in 2010 in the prices of petroleum and petroleum products 

and methanol, which are major imports from CBERA countries. U.S. imports under 

CBERA accounted for 28.6 percent of all U.S. imports from CBERA countries in 2010. 

Trinidad and Tobago continued as the leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 

2010, accounting for 76.3 percent of total imports under CBERA. Haiti, the Bahamas, 

and Jamaica were also leading suppliers (appendix table A.17). Mineral fuels, methanol, 

and apparel products dominated the list of imports under CBERA in 2010 (appendix table 

A.18). Of the 25 leading products under CBERA in 2010, 3 were mineral fuels, which 

entered under CBTPA (accounting for 45.2 percent of total U.S. imports under CBERA 

in 2010); 3 were knitted apparel entered under CBTPA (12.0 percent); and the remaining 

19 were products that qualify for benefits under nonexpiring CBERA provisions (39.8 

percent, of which 30.8 percent of the total was methanol). Together, these 25 leading 

imports accounted for 97.1 percent of total U.S. imports under CBERA in 2010. 

 109 Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, 

Jamaica, Montserrat, the Netherlands Antilles, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and the British Virgin Islands. 110 Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Panama, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. 111 Table 2.6, and appendix tables A.17 and A.18 include data for one CAFTA-DR country (Costa Rica), 

which was eligible for CBERA benefits during 2008. The decline in U.S. imports under CBERA provisions 

in 2009 reflects the fact that Costa Rica, which accounted for 20 percent of U.S. imports from CBERA 

countries in 2008, was no longer a beneficiary as of January 1, 2009, and its imports since then have been 

accorded special tariff treatment under CAFTA-DR. U.S. FTAs are discussed in more detail in chapter 4 of 

this report. 
2-21 

TABLE 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2008–10 

Item 2008a 2009 2010

Total imports from CBERA countries (millions of $) 19,486 9,414 10,121

 Total under CBERA, including CBTPA (millions of $) 4,726 2,359 2,893

 Imports under CBTPA (millions of $)b 1,702 1,281 1,671

 Imports under CBERA, excluding CBTPA (millions of $)c 3,024 1,078 1,221

Total under CBERA as a percent of total 24.3 25.1 28.6

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

 a Includes data for Costa Rica. Costa Rica joined CAFTA-DR on January 1, 2009. 

 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. 

Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act 

and Haiti Economic Lift Program 

The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 

(HOPE Act) 112 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. 113 The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II Act) 114 amended the HOPE Act to provide 

additional trade preferences. 

Haiti’s apparel manufacturing industry is the single largest sector in the Haitian 

economy,115 and the United States is its most important market. U.S. imports of apparel 

from Haiti increased 1 percent to $517.6 million in 2010. Cotton knit t-shirts, cotton knit 

blouses, and cotton underwear comprised almost three-fourths of the apparel products 

exported from Haiti to the United States in 2010. U.S. imports of apparel in 2010 under 

provisions of the HOPE Act, as amended by the HOPE II Act, rose to $159.8 million 

from $137.9 million in 2009.116 

In January 2010, Haiti suffered its worst earthquake in recorded history.117 In response to 

the earthquake, on May 24, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Haiti Economic 

Lift Program of 2010 (HELP Act).118 The principal aim of the HELP Act was to aid in 

 112 Pub. L. 109-432, sect. 5001 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE Act). 113 There have been no imports of wire harness automotive components from Haiti in 2007, 2008, 2009, or 

2010. 114 Pub. L. 110-234, sect. 15401, et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II Act). Provisions of the HOPE Acts were expanded and extended to 

September 30, 2020, by the Haiti Economic Lift Program (HELP) Act of 2010 on May 24, 2010 (Pub.L.111-

171). 115 Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg, P.A., “Haiti Suffers Devastating Earthquake,” January 14, 2010, 1. 116 Data on trade under the HOPE acts are from USDOC, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), “U.S. 

Imports under Trade Preference Programs.” 117 Pub. L. 111-171, sect. 2, Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010 (HELP Act). 118 Pub. L. 111-171, sect. 2, Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010 (HELP Act). 
2-22 

Haiti’s recovery 119 and to offer incentives to make it more cost-effective for U.S. 

companies to import apparel from Haiti. 120 The HELP legislation expanded current 

programs under the HOPE Acts and established new preferences, with unlimited dutyfree treatment for certain knit apparel and certain home goods.121 Expansion of existing 

programs went into effect as soon as the President signed the law. However, the new 

preferences for knit apparel and certain home goods did not go into effect until the 

executive order was issued on November 1, 2010, and no imports had yet entered under 

two new classifications established by the HELP Act as of yearend 2010.122

Key provisions under HELP (1) extend certain preferential treatment provisions in the 

Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and the HOPE Act through September 30, 2020; 

(2) provide 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 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; (4) liberalize the earned import 

allowance rule by allowing the uncapped duty-free importation of one square meter 

equivalent of apparel wholly assembled or knit to shape 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; and (5) extend 

duty-free treatment until (a) December 20, 2015, for apparel wholly assembled or knit to 

shape in Haiti with at least 50 percent value from Haiti, the United States, or a U.S. free 

trade agreement partner or preference program beneficiary (“qualifying countries”), (b) 

December 20, 2017, for Haitian apparel with at least 55 percent value from “qualifying 

countries,” and (c) December 20, 2018, for Haitian apparel with at least 60 percent value 

from “qualifying countries.” 

 119 Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg, P.A., “Apparel Sector Expected to Play a Critical Role in Haiti’s 

Recovery,” January 28, 2010, 1. 120 The White House, “The United States Government’s Haiti Earthquake Response,” June 25, 2010. In 

February 2010, during a visit to the MAGIC marketplace textile and apparel trade event in Las Vegas, USTR 

Ambassador Ron Kirk announced a “Plus One for Haiti Program.” The initiative is designed to help postearthquake recovery efforts in Haiti by encouraging U.S. brands and retailers to work toward sourcing 1 

percent of their total apparel production from Haiti. The impact of the program to date has reportedly been 

limited because of additional administrative costs for U.S. apparel companies and because Haiti lacks the 

infrastructure needed to increase manufacturing output to meet such a goal. USTR, “USTR Ron Kirk Joined 

by Apparel Industry Leaders,” February 10, 2010; U.S. apparel industry representative, e-mail message to 

USITC staff, February 16, 2011; U.S. apparel industry representative, interview with USITC staff, March 2, 

2011. 121 USDOC staff, OTEXA, e-mail message to USITC staff, February 16, 2011. 122 The two new classifications added to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule are 9820.61.45 (apparel articles 

found in HTS chapter 98, subchapter XX, U.S. note 6(q)(ii) that are wholly assembled, or knit-to-shape in 

Haiti from any combination of fabrics, fabric components, components knit-to-shape, or yarns) and 

9820.63.05 (any made-up textile articles found in chapter 98, subdivision XX, U.S. note 6(r)(ii) that are 

wholly assembled, or knit-to-shape, in Haiti from any combination of fabrics, fabric components, 

components knit-to-shape, or yarns). U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Memorandum for Directors,” 

November 10, 2010. 
3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

Selected Trade Developments in the WTO, 

OECD, APEC, and ACTA 

This chapter covers 2010 developments in the World Trade Organization (WTO), 

including the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations; the work programs, 

decisions, and reviews of the General Council; and dispute settlement. The chapter also 

covers activities in other multilateral groups, including the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (OECD), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 

and participants in the negotiations to conclude an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

(ACTA). 

World Trade Organization 

Doha Trade Negotiations 

In March 2010, Doha Round participants held a week-long stocktaking exercise, 

punctuated at both its start and its end with formal meetings of the Trade Negotiating 

Committee (TNC) on March 22 and March 26. In addition to these two formal meetings, 

the TNC held four informal meetings in 2010, on June 11, July 27, October 19, and 

November 30. 

At the March 22 meeting, the chairs of each of the negotiating groups in the Doha 

Development Agenda (DDA) gave participants reports, both written and oral, on the state 

of play in each negotiating area.1

 Following a week of consultations among member 

delegations meeting in a variety of groupings and formats, the TNC chair—WTO 

Director-General Pascal Lamy—summarized his view that the stocktaking had yielded a 

clear catalog of the gaps remaining between different positions, although he said it was 

less clear at times how large a gap remained and what might be done to resolve the 

differences.2

In summing up, the TNC chairman reported that delegations had indicated a need for a 

variety of approaches to address remaining substantive differences simultaneously. As a 

result, he proposed a three-pronged approach for negotiations to proceed during 2010: (1) 

renewed discussions in negotiating groups to advance the technical state of individual 

issues; (2) increased TNC consultations with a variety of groups, as well as additional 

TNC meetings to maintain a clear overview for all participants of the negotiating 

landscape; and (3) expanded talks involving smaller and varied groupings of participants 

in order to develop a more overarching, “horizontal” view of the connections, linkages, 

and tradeoffs needed to conclude negotiations across multiple subject areas.3

 1

 WTO, “Statement by the Chairman,” JOB/TNC/1, March 22, 2010, 1, par. 5. 2

 WTO, “Statement by the Chairman,” JOB/TNC/2, March 26, 2010, 1, par. 10–11. 3

 WTO, “Statement by the Chairman,” JOB/TNC/2, March 26, 2010, 2, par. 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The TNC 

chairman described this three-pronged approach as the “cocktail” approach, using “the right dose of each 

ingredient and a good shake,” as well as the three “ingredients” of re-energized negotiating group discussions, 

increased TNC consultations, and meetings involving small and varied groupings of delegations to develop 
3-2 

Trade in Agriculture4

The DDA Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, continued its work in 2010 along 

two lines: (1) developing a common negotiating template, and (2) exploring “bracketed” 

text (i.e., not yet agreed) or annotated language that marks unresolved issues in the 

group’s draft negotiating framework (also known as the draft modalities text). 

Negotiating template 

The committee continued its informal discussions of a number of drafts addressing all of 

the three agricultural “pillars” under negotiation—domestic support, market access, and 

export competition. These drafts proposed various formats for the standardized template 

that will be used to list final negotiated offers in each member’s WTO schedule of 

concessions and commitments.5

In addition, work advanced during the year on the associated base data to be used in the 

negotiating templates. The WTO Secretariat prepared papers aimed at helping members 

verify these base data, both on overarching topics, such as the value of production used to 

calculate domestic support commitments, and on particular subjects, such as productionlimited agricultural support payments (“Blue Box subsidies”) when product-specific data 

are available. 

Unresolved issues in the draft modalities text 

The chair continued work with participants to clarify technical aspects, such as 

ambiguities in texts about tariff simplification, the establishment of tariff-rate quotas,6

and the agricultural selective safeguard mechanism. This mechanism is intended to allow 

developing country members to raise tariffs temporarily in the event of import surges or a 

sudden decline in prices.7

Nonagricultural Market Access8

Since the December 2005 WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, talks on 

nonagricultural market access (NAMA)—i.e., access to markets in industrial goods—

have focused on the elements detailed in the so-called NAMA framework set out in the 

Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, Annex B. The framework listed several priority 

issues for discussion—in particular, a formula for cutting industrial goods tariff rates, 

flexibilities for developing-country members regarding the formula, unbound tariff lines, 

industry sector coverage, nontariff measures (NTMs), capacity-building measures, and 

environmental goods. 

 crosscutting horizontal views of issue areas. WTO, “Statement by the Chairman,” JOB/TNC/2, March 26, 

2010, 2, par. 8; WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/4, July 27, 2010, 1, par. 7. 4

 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 3–6. 5

 A WTO member’s schedule of concessions contains specific tariff concessions as well as other 

commitments agreed during negotiations. Each schedule consists of four parts: part I concerns most-favorednation tariffs, with subsections addressing tariffs on agricultural products, tariff-rate quotas on agricultural 

products, as well as other products; part II concerns preferential concessions; part III concerns concessions on 

nontariff measures; and part IV concerns specific commitments on domestic support and export subsidies on 

agricultural products. WTO, “Trade Topics: Goods Schedules; Members’ Commitments” (accessed February 

24, 2011). 6

 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/8, March 8, 2011, 1–2, par. 7 ff. 

7

 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/3, June 11, 2010, 2, par. 9. 8

 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 3. 
3-3 

During 2010, the DDA Negotiating Group on Nonagricultural Market Access focused 

largely on NTMs, including sources of NTMs (such as technical barriers to trade imposed 

through standards and related measures), effects of NTMs as trade barriers in various 

industrial goods sectors, and efforts to increase the transparency of measures affecting 

nonagricultural market access. Proposals and contributions largely addressed (1) 

particular sectors (automobiles, chemicals, electronics, textile labeling, and 

remanufactured goods), (2) broader issues affecting market access (international 

standards, conformity assessment, good regulatory practices, and transparency), and (3) 

particular strategies to address nontariff barriers, including a “horizontal mechanism” 

designed to resolve disagreements between WTO members over NTMs before resorting 

to a formal dispute settlement process.9

 In September, the group met to share information 

with representatives from a number of standard-setting bodies, including the International 

Organization for Standards, International Telecommunication Union, International 

Electrotechnical Commission, and the Bureau of Indian Standards.10

In transparency discussions, the WTO Secretariat circulated a document to help further 

the NAMA negotiating group’s discussion of transparency in general and automobiles in 

particular. The document focused on possible disciplines to be added under the WTO 

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), dubbed the TBT-plus approach.11 On 

the subject of conformity assessment rules, the United States introduced a revised 

electronics proposal. The United States also circulated materials addressing the 

development and use of various international standards. Group discussions on chemicals 

centered around the responses of the European Union (EU) to questions posed about its 

proposal on the sector, and other discussions addressed textile labeling. At yearend, the 

chairman indicated that the group’s next step would likely be to move on to text-based 

negotiations in whole-group sessions, supplemented by consultations with smaller 

groups.12

Trade in Services 

In the DDA Council for Trade in Services, Special Session, discussions advanced on 

market access, as well as in broader areas of the services negotiations. Market-access 

discussions on trade in services during 2010 principally reflected two new elements: (1) 

grouping logistical and supply-chain services together, with the aim of facilitating 

request/offer negotiations; and (2) forming a plurilateral request/offer group to help 

facilitate negotiations on accounting services. 

Other discussions advanced technical issues, addressing topics such as a waiver for the 

least developed country members concerning disciplines on trade in services, domestic 

regulation of services, and services subsidies. A major focus of talks on domestic 

regulation centered around requirements and procedures that affect the qualification and 

licensing of service providers, as well as how to streamline disciplines in this area. A 

principal focus of discussions on services subsidies looked at how service subsidy 

schemes work, as well as the economic distortions they might cause. The Committee on 

Specific Commitments also discussed possible ways to verify tariff and other 

commitment schedules under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), 

 9

 WTO, “Trade Policy Review: Report by European Communities,” WT/TPR/G/214, March 2, 2009, 11–

12, par. 33. 10 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/5, October 19, 2010, 3, par. 2. 11 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 3, par. 3; 

WTO, “Market Access for Non-agricultural Products—Transparency,” November 9, 2010, 1, par. 1–2. 12 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 3, par. 3. 
3-4 

following conclusion of the Doha Round.13 Additional work on technical issues focused 

on emergency safeguards and government procurement of services.14

Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights 

The work program of the Council for Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), 

Special Session, continued in 2010 with its negotiations over the establishment of a 

multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines 

and spirits. During the year, the session focused on the major stumbling block—i.e., the 

consequences (including the legal effects) of registration.15

To develop a technical base for discussion, the chair circulated two questions to 

participants: (1) what are existing domestic procedures and practices for registration of 

geographical indications? and (2) how might national authorities governing geographical 

indications alter their operations in response to different ways of substantiating 

information on the register of geographical indications for wines and spirits? As raised by 

the TNC chairman, one issue involved how domestic authorities’ procedures for 

registration and protection currently back up a geographic term’s claim of specificity or, 

alternatively, of “generic-ness.”16 The session’s work in 2011 is expected to continue to 

exchange information to build up technical understanding and in so doing, to identify 

commonalities and differences among participants.17

The WTO Director-General also reported in his own capacity (rather than as TNC 

chairman). He stated that during 2010, he held further consultations on the two TRIPS 

implementation issues tasked to him by ministers under the 2001 Doha Declaration: (1) 

the issue of extending talks on geographical indications beyond wine and spirits, and (2) 

the relation between the TRIPS Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological 

Diversity concerning, for example, intellectual property rights protection related to 

traditional knowledge and folklore, plant genetic resources, and biological diversity 

issues.18

Trade Remedy Rules 

The Negotiating Group on Rules made progress during the year on antidumping issues, 

“horizontal” subsidies, and fisheries subsidies, and also undertook additional work in the 

area of regional trade agreements (RTAs). The group focused on the systematic review of 

the current draft texts for antidumping issues and horizontal subsidies, addressing issues 

that concerned both language agreed and language not agreed (“unbracketed” and 

“bracketed text,” respectively). The group also discussed a number of issues raised by 

various participants not currently included in the chair texts. On fisheries subsidies, the 

group addressed both broad topics—such as prohibitions, special and differential 

treatment, and other possible exceptions to subsidy disciplines—as well as specific 

proposals tabled by participants. 

Concerning RTAs, WTO members agreed at a meeting of the General Council in May 

2010 that the negotiating group should review the current interim transparency 

 13 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 3–4, par. 6–8. 

14 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/5, October 19, 2010, 3, par. 8. 15 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/3, June 11, 2010, 4, par. 6. 16 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/4, July 27, 2010, 3–4, par. 9. 17 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 5, par. 5–6. 18 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/5, October 19, 2010, 5, par. 4–5. 
3-5 

mechanism established for RTAs, with the aim of making the mechanism permanent. 

During the year, the group also continued informal discussions on systemic issues of 

RTAs, although negotiation on this issue was constrained by the current lack of 

proposals.19

Dispute Settlement Understanding 

For most of 2010, the Dispute Settlement Body, Special Session, held discussions 

focused primarily on sequencing and related potential time savings, as well as effective 

compliance.20 New topics, concerning timeframes for the various stages in the dispute 

settlement process and post-retaliation situations, were taken up near the end of 2010 as 

topics for ongoing discussion in 2011.21 The issue of sequencing addresses whether a 

complainant is entitled to request authorization to suspend obligations—i.e., impose 

retaliatory measures—before a dispute panel or the Appellate Body has established that 

the respondent has failed to comply with the panel rulings.22 Related to sequencing, the 

post-retaliation issue concerns a procedure to determine whether or not compliance has in 

fact been achieved once authorization to retaliate has been granted to the complainant and 

the respondent has notified the panel that it has complied with the panel ruling. The topic 

of effective compliance bears on the issue of strengthening dispute settlement remedies 

related to compensation and the suspension of concessions—e.g., the collective 

enforcement of panel recommendations, suspension of concessions during the 

recommended compliance period, and possible cross-retaliation in certain circumstances. 

The discussion of timeframes involves the possibility of shortening the timeframe for 

particular stages in the dispute settlement process—holding consultations, setting up a 

panel, and so forth.23

Trade Facilitation 

In 2010, the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation24 continued to refine and elaborate 

the current draft consolidated text comprising participants’ proposals to date, aiming to 

reduce the amount of bracketed text still outstanding. The group held discussions 

covering all elements in the working document, focusing in particular on special and 

differential treatment,25 as well as language on the release and clearance of goods26 and 

Article VIII topics on customs fees and formalities. Nonetheless, in his yearend 

summary, the TNC chairman pointed out that the many contested items remaining in the 

draft text have prevented these negotiations from proceeding to more advanced 

discussions.27

 19 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 4, par. 1–3. 20 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/5, October 19, 2010, 5, par. 3. 21 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 5, par. 7. 22 WTO, “Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body,” JOB(08)/81, July 18, 2008, 36; WTO, “The 

Process: Stages in a Typical WTO Dispute Settlement Case” (accessed March 8, 2011). 23 WTO, “Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body,” JOB(08)/81, July 18, 2008, 37, 39, and 43. 24 The 2001 DDA adopted a work program that included the subject of trade facilitation, focused in 

particular on GATT Articles V (Freedom of Transit), VIII (Fees and Formalities connected with Importation 

and Exportation), and X (Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations). In August 2004, the 

Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation was established, as a result of the WTO members’ decision to 

launch negotiations in this area under the DDA. For further information, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2002, 

August 2003, 3-14; USITC, The Year in Trade 2004, July 2005, 3-5. 25 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 4, par. 5–6. 26 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/5, October 19, 2010, 4, par. 4. 27 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 4, par. 5–6. 
3-6 

Trade and Environment 

During 2010, discussions in the Committee on Trade and Environment, Special Session, 

focused on two major parts of the committee’s mandate under the 2001 Doha 

Declaration: (1) paragraph 31(i), on the relation between WTO trade rules and trade rules 

established under multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); and (2) paragraph 

31(iii), on the reduction and elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers to environmental 

goods and services.28

Paragraph 31(i) 

Talks on paragraph 31(i) proceeded during the year based on five main areas of interest, 

as identified by the committee chair in 2008 from positions tabled by participants: (1) the 

coordination of trade and environment measures at the national level, as informed by the 

sharing of participants’ national experiences on negotiating and implementing specific 

trade obligations under MEAs; (2) how to reflect MEA trade obligations within the final 

DDA outcome; (3) dispute settlement and other legal principles; (4) technical assistance 

for developing-country members concerning trade and environment disciplines; and (5) 

overall general principles. 29 In October 2010, delegations reintroduced previous 

submissions to reflect linkages mapped to these five underlying themes.30

Paragraph 31(iii) 

Talks on paragraph 31(iii) focused largely on identifying the “universe” of possible 

environmental goods of interest, and on special and differential treatment for developing 

countries in this area. 31 The committee also took note of a paper on environmental 

services––originally prepared by the WTO Secretariat for the Council for Trade in 

Services––and the linkages it highlighted between environmental goods and services.32

By yearend, participants had stressed the need to intensify discussions and address the 

crosscutting issues of nontariff barriers, technology transfer, and capacity building in 

relation to trade and environment issues, and to further discuss special and differential 

treatment. The chair agreed to identify commonalities and highlight outstanding issues in 

submissions already introduced, and to seek to reach a greater in-depth understanding of 

technical issues within the committee so as to better identify possible environmental 

goods of interest and move toward text-based negotiations.33

Special and Differential Treatment 

Under the DDA Work Program on Special and Differential Treatment, the chair of the 

Committee on Trade and Development, Special Session, focused discussions on closing 

gaps among participants on different elements of a mechanism to monitor special and 

differential treatment for developing countries.34 Discussions were also held on some of 

 28 USITC, The Year in Trade 2001, May 2002, 2-11. 29 WTO, “Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session,” TN/TE/19, March 22, 2010, 1. 30 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/5, October 19, 2010, 4, par. 7. 31 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/5, October 19, 2010, 4, par. 7. 32 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 4–5, par. 7 ff. 

33 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 4–5, par. 7 ff. 

34 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/3, June 11, 2010, 4, par. 1–3. The 

WTO agreements contain a number of special provisions whereby developed country members treat 

developing country members more favorably in order to help support their economic development. These 

provisions—collectively referred to as “special and differential treatment”—can include allowing longer time 

periods to implement and adjust to various obligations and commitments in WTO agreements; measures to 
3-7 

the agreement-specific proposals addressing special and differential treatment under six 

specific WTO agreements.35 During the year, an informal group of participants—the socalled Ambassadors on Development Issues—introduced some “Guiding Principles on 

the Monitoring Mechanism” aimed at articulating the objectives that such a mechanism 

would seek to achieve. The chair indicated that consultations will continue on refining the 

monitoring mechanism, and will revert to agreement-specific proposals as appropriate 

based on member input.36

General Council37 

Work Programs, Decisions, and Reviews 

In 2010, the WTO General Council held five meetings: February 22, May 4, July 29, 

October 21, and its annual meeting on December 14–15, 2010. In his capacity as TNC 

chairman overseeing the DDA trade negotiations, the WTO Director-General provided a 

report to the General Council at each meeting on the state of progress in the trade talks. In 

October 2010, the Director-General introduced the joint WTO-OECD monitoring and 

evaluation exercise aimed at helping providers understand whether “Aid-for-Trade” 

efforts currently underway were effective. He noted that the joint evaluation will provide 

the main input for the Third Global Review of Aid for Trade, scheduled for July 2011. In 

December 2010, the Director-General reported to the council that the sectoral initiative 

on cotton, first raised in the WTO in April 2003 and included in the DDA framework text 

in August 2004, continued on its two tracks addressing (1) trade policy, and (2) 

development assistance. He pointed out that progress on the first track was linked 

prominently to the DDA agricultural negotiations. On the second track, he pointed out 

that the most recent version of the Evolving Table on Cotton Development Assistance––

developed to help monitor the issue––indicated that the value of specific development 

assistance to cotton was currently estimated at $570 million. 

Transparency arrangements 

During the year, the council worked to adopt several transparency arrangements. In 

December 2010, the council adopted a Decision establishing a Transparency Mechanism 

for Preferential Trade Arrangements that requires notification of a preferential trade 

arrangement to the WTO Committee on Trade and Development under provisions of the 

so-called 1979 Enabling Clause.38 In addition, the council heard about progress made 

toward converting the provisional Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade 

Agreements to a permanent mechanism, building on experience gained to date.39

 increase trading opportunities specifically focused on developing countries; and support to help developing 

countries build their own administrative infrastructure to carry out WTO work, handle WTO disputes, and 

implement commonly agreed technical standards. Special and differential treatment also includes provisions 

aimed at addressing the particular issues affecting least-developed-country members. 35 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/3, June 11, 2010, 4, par. 1–3. 

36 WTO, “Informal TNC Meeting: Chairman’s Remarks,” JOB/TNC/6, November 30, 2010, 5, par. 2–4. 37 WTO, “Annual Report (2010),” WT/GC/131, February 8, 2011. 

38 Formally, the Decision of 28 November 1979 on Differential and More Favourable Treatment 

Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries. 39 In December 2006, the WTO General Council adopted a provisional mechanism, developed by the 

Negotiating Group on Rules in the Doha Round trade negotiations, that would have the Committee on Trade 

and Development oversee the transparency mechanism for preferential trade arrangements. The mechanism 

promotes greater uniformity in the information that members provide about these arrangements. The 

coverage of RTAs remains separate, with the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements overseeing any 

transparency mechanism covering RTAs. 
3-8 

Work programs 

During 2010, the council heard reports on several standing work programs underway: the 

small economies work program under the DDA, the work program on electronic 

commerce, and the harmonization work program under the WTO Agreement on Rules of 

Origin. 

In 2002, as part of the Doha Development Agenda, the Work Program on Small 

Economies was adopted as a standing item for the General Council; ministers agreed that 

the program would become a standing item for the General Council’s consideration. The 

Committee on Trade and Development was tasked to report regularly to the council on 

developments in this area. In 2010, the council heard committee reports about proposals 

in the DDA aimed at helping small and vulnerable economies by providing additional 

flexibilities for these economies in the areas of agricultural and nonagricultural market 

access, services, trade facilitation, and fisheries subsidies. 

In December 2009, WTO ministers seeking to reinvigorate efforts under the Work 

Program on E-Commerce tasked the General Council to hold periodic reviews of 

progress in preparation for the next WTO ministerial conference. In December 2010, the 

council took note in its review that no work on electronic commerce (e-commerce) had 

taken place under the work program, although some WTO member delegations reported 

that work addressing e-commerce had taken place in national capitals during the year. 

The council also heard suggestions on how to advance the work of the Harmonization 

Work Program under the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, as originally mandated by 

ministers as part of the 1986–93 Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations. 

Review of the Decision on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 

At its annual meeting in December 2010, the General Council heard the seventh annual 

review of the TRIPS Council concerning the August 2003 Decision on the TRIPS 

Agreement and Public Health. 40 The decision allows developing countries, and least 

developed countries in particular, greater access to vital medicines under the TRIPS 

Agreement when faced with medical pandemics that threaten public health, such as 

tuberculosis, human immunovirus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), 

or the like. 

Accession matters 

During the year, the council took note of the appointment of new chairmen for the 

accession working parties for Belarus, Ethiopia, and Samoa. In May 2010, the General 

Council agreed to establish an accession working party for Syria. The council also took 

note of developments in the effort toward simplifying the WTO accession process for 

developing countries, in particular, least developed countries. 

No new members acceded to the WTO in 2010, leaving membership at 153 (table 3.1). 

Syria became an observer to the WTO in May 2010, bringing the number of observers to 

31 (table 3.2). 

 40 WTO, General Council, “Annual Report (2010),” February 8, 2011. 
3-9 

TABLE 3.1 WTO membership in 2010 

Albania Gambia Niger 

Angola Georgia Nigeria 

Antigua and Barbuda Germany Norway 

Argentina Ghana Oman 

Armenia Greece Pakistan 

Australia Grenada Panama 

Austria Guatemala Papua New Guinea 

Bahrain Guinea Paraguay 

Bangladesh Guinea-Bissau Peru 

Barbados Guyana Philippines 

Belgium Haiti Poland 

Belize Honduras Portugal 

Benin Hong Kong, China Qatar 

Bolivia Hungary Romania 

Botswana Iceland Rwanda 

Brazil India Saint Kitts and Nevis 

Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Saint Lucia 

Bulgaria Ireland Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 

Burkina Faso Israel Saudi Arabia 

Burma (Myanmar) Italy Senegal 

Burundi Jamaica Sierra Leone 

Cambodia Japan Singapore 

Cameroon Jordan Slovak Republic 

Canada Kenya Slovenia 

Cape Verde Korea, Republic of Solomon Islands 

Central African Republic Kuwait South Africa 

Chad Kyrgyzstan Spain 

Chile Latvia Sri Lanka 

China Lesotho Suriname 

Chinese Taipeia

 Liechtenstein Swaziland 

Colombia Lithuania Sweden 

Congo, Democratic Republic of the Luxembourg Switzerland 

Congo, Republic of Macao, China Tanzania 

Costa Rica Macedoniab Thailand 

Côte d’Ivoire Madagascar Togo 

Croatia Malawi Tonga 

Cuba Malaysia Trinidad and Tobago 

Cyprus Maldives Tunisia 

Czech Republic Mali Turkey 

Denmark Malta Uganda 

Djibouti Mauritania Ukraine 

Dominica Mauritius United Arab Emirates 

Dominican Republic Mexico United Kingdom 

Ecuador Moldova United States of America 

Egypt Mongolia Uruguay 

El Salvador Morocco Venezuela 

Estonia Mozambique Vietnam 

European Communities Namibia Zambia 

Fiji Nepal Zimbabwe 

Finland Netherlands 

France New Zealand 

Gabon Nicaragua 

Source: WTO, “Members and Observers” (accessed March 15, 2011). 

 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.” 

 b Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 
3-10 

TABLE 3.2 WTO observers in 2010 

Afghanistan Iran São Tomé and Príncipe 

Algeria Iraq Serbia 

Andorra Kazakhstan Seychelles 

Azerbaijan Laos Sudan 

Bahamas Lebanon Syria 

Belarus Liberia Tajikistan 

Bhutan Libya Uzbekistan 

Bosnia and Herzegovina Montenegro Vanuatu 

Comoros Russia Vatican (Holy See) 

Ethiopia Samoa Yemen 

Guinea, Equatorial 

Source: WTO, “Members and Observers” (accessed March 15, 2011). 

Waivers 

During the year, the council adopted several waivers that would permit a WTO member 

to postpone for a year the domestic implementation of nomenclature changes in the 

Harmonized System (HS 1996, 2002, and 2007) until these nomenclature adjustments 

can be incorporated into a member’s WTO Schedule of Concessions. 

The council reviewed individual waivers, renewing several granted to the United States: 

the African Growth and Opportunity Act (renewed from May 27, 2009 until September 

30, 2015); Andean Trade Preference Act (from May 27, 2009 until December 31, 2014); 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (from May 27, 2009 until December 31, 2014); 

and the Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (from July 27, 2007 until December 

31, 2016). 

The council also reviewed waivers granted to least developed countries concerning the 

TRIPS Agreement and pharmaceutical products; to the EU concerning EU preferences 

for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Macedonia 

(FYROM41), as well as for Moldova; to Mongolia concerning export duties on raw 

cashmere wool; to Canada concerning the Caribbean-Canada Preferential Trade 

Agreement; and to Cuba concerning foreign exchange arrangements. The council also 

reviewed a waiver concerning the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme regarding 

rough diamonds. 

Ministerial conference 

In October 2010, the council took up the question of the next WTO ministerial 

conference, deciding provisionally to hold the eighth ministerial conference in Geneva, 

Switzerland, December 15–17, 2011. 

Administrative matters 

As usual, the council took up administrative matters during the year, including budget 

and finance, membership dues payments, and pension plans. In addition, the council 

approved the annual report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and 

Development/WTO International Trade Centre, the appointment of new officers to 

various WTO bodies, and the election of a chairperson for the General Council. 

 41 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 
3-11 

Selected Plurilateral Agreements 

Agreement on Government Procurement 

At yearend 2010, there were 14 parties to the 1973–79 Tokyo Round plurilateral 

Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). 42 Twenty-three additional WTO 

members held observer status in the Committee on Government Procurement at 

yearend. 43 Nine of these observers (Albania, Armenia, China, Georgia, Jordan, 

Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Oman, and Panama) were in the process of negotiating their 

accession to the agreement, while four others (Croatia, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, and 

Ukraine) had provisions in their respective WTO protocols of accession to initiate 

negotiations for accession to the GPA. 

At the December meeting of the WTO General Council, the chair of the Committee on 

Government Procurement highlighted several developments during 2010. First, he 

reported that the ongoing renegotiation of the GPA—both its rules and its market access 

commitments—was near completion after a number of years, with a conclusion possible 

in 2011. Second, on the subject of accessions to the GPA, the committee chair pointed 

out that Armenia had been invited to accede to the agreement, and that accession 

negotiations with both China and Jordan had reached advanced stages.44 Of particular 

importance to GPA members has been China’s commitment under its 2001 WTO 

Protocol of Accession to open negotiations for accession to the GPA. In December 2007, 

China submitted its initial offer covering government procurement, followed by a revised 

offer in July 2010. In December 2010, parties in these negotiations requested a further 

revised offer before the end of 2011 that includes coverage of both subcentral 

government entities and some state-owned enterprises,45 coverage that China has agreed 

to consider in forthcoming revised offers.46

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products 

At yearend 2010, the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 

Information Technology Products reviewed the implementation of the 2001 Doha 

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (the Information 

Technology Agreement, or ITA). At the end of 2010, there were 46 participants in the 

ministerial declaration.47 At the participants’ final meeting of the year, the committee 

 42 Aruba, Canada, Chinese Taipei, the European Union, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, the Republic of 

Korea, Liechtenstein, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States. WTO, “Report (2010) of the 

Committee on Government Procurement,” December 9, 2010, 1, par. 1–4. 43 Albania, Argentina, Armenia, 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 (2010) of the Committee on Government Procurement,” December 9, 

2010, 1, par. 1–4. 44 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting; Held in the Centre William Rappard,” February 16, 2011, 

par. 147–148. 45 WTO, Committee on Government Procurement, “Minutes of the Formal Meeting of 9 December 2010,” 

March 1, 2011, par. 7. 46 USTR, The 2010 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2011, 86–87. 47 Albania; Australia; Bahrain; Canada; China, Hong Kong; China, Macao; China; Chinese Taipei 

(Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu); Costa Rica; Croatia; Dominican 

Republic; Egypt; El Salvador; European Union; Georgia; Guatemala; Honduras; Iceland; India; Indonesia; 

Israel; Japan; Jordan; the Republic of Korea; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Malaysia; Mauritius; Moldova; Morocco; 

New Zealand; Nicaragua; Norway; Oman; Panama; Peru; Philippines; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Switzerland 

(Switzerland/Liechtenstein customs union); Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; United States; 

and Vietnam. WTO, “Status of Implementation—Note,” October 28, 2010. 
3-12 

chair noted that 20 of the 46 participants had provided information to help draw up a list 

of electromagnetic compatibility and electromagnetic interference standards that 

participants have adopted for ITA products. 48 The chair encouraged participants to 

provide such information so that the committee can advance its work in categorizing 

these measures. 

In addition, the committee considered its NTM work program. This effort aims to 

identify NTMs that impede trade in information technology products, assess the 

economic impact of such measures, and estimate the benefits that might result from 

addressing their trade-distorting effects. Work also continued during the year on 

narrowing differences between participants concerning classification divergences to be 

referred either to further committee discussion among customs experts, to the 

Harmonized System Committee of the World Customs Organization, or to the formal 

Committee of Participants. 

Dispute Settlement Body 

This section focuses on complaints filed and on panel and Appellate Body findings and 

recommendations adopted under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding during 

calendar year 2010.49 Appendix table A.19 shows developments during 2010 in the WTO 

dispute settlement proceedings in which the United States was either a complainant or 

respondent. 

The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) establishes a framework for the 

resolution of disputes that arise between members under the WTO agreements.50 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. 51 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 in the complaint and make findings and recommendations.52 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.53 

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.54 If it is impracticable to comply immediately, the party concerned is 

given a reasonable period of time to be decided either through agreement of the parties 

 48 WTO, “Meeting of 11 November 2010,” JOB/IT/1, October 29, 2010. 

49 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. 50 WTO, “Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,” Final Act 

Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (WTO, Geneva: 1995). 51 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 4. 

52 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 6. 

53 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 17.6. 54 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 21.3. 
3-13 

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.55 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. 

The remainder of this section focuses on dispute settlement activity during 2010 

involving the United States either as the complainant or the respondent, including new 

requests for dispute settlement consultations that have been filed, the issues before new 

panels established during 2010, and panel reports and Appellate Body reports adopted 

during 2010. 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. 

Most of the dispute settlement panels active at the start of 2010 circulated reports during 

2010. However, several panels established before the start of the year were still engaged 

in their work at the end of the year, with panel reports delayed until 2011 for a number of 

reasons, including delays in composing the panel and the complexity of the issues. For 

example, the panel in DS381 (challenge by Mexico of U.S. measures relating to the 

labeling of Mexican tuna and tuna products as “dolphin safe”), established in April 2009 

and composed in December 2009, announced that its report would be delayed to June 

2011 due to an unforeseen change in the composition of the panel and the complexity of 

some of the issues.56 The panel in DS382 (challenge by Brazil of U.S. antidumping 

administrative reviews and other measures related to imports of certain orange juice from 

Brazil), established in September 2009 and composed in May 2010, announced in July 

2010 that its report would be delayed to February 2011 because of scheduling conflicts.57

The single panel established for DS384 and DS386 (challenges by Canada and Mexico of 

U.S. country of origin labeling requirements) established on November 19, 2009, and 

composed on April 30, 2010, advised in December 2010 that it expects to complete its 

work by the middle of 2011.58 The panel in DS394 (U.S. challenge of China’s measures 

on the exportation of various raw materials), established in December 2009 and 

composed in March 2010 as a single panel to consider DS394 and similar disputes 

 55 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 22. 56 WTO, DSB, DS381: United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna, 

online summary. In a separate action relating to this dispute, the United States requested that the NAFTA 

Free Trade Commission establish a dispute settlement panel regarding Mexico’s decision not to move its 

dolphin-safe labeling dispute from the WTO to the NAFTA, as requested by the United States and required 

by Article 2005 of the NAFTA. See USTR, “United States Requests Dispute Settlement Panel,” September 

24, 2010. 57 WTO, DSB, DS382: United States—Anti-Dumping Administrative Review and Other Measures Related 

to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, online summary. The panel report was circulated on March 

25, 2011. 58 WTO, DSB, DS384: United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements, online 

summary, and DS386: United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements, online summary.
3-14 

brought by the European Communities (EC)59 and Mexico (DS395 and DS398), advised 

in October 2010 that it expected to finalize its report by April 2011.60 

Panel reports were issued in June 2010 and March 2011, respectively, in two of the 

longest-running disputes, involving U.S. and EC complaints about each other’s measures 

affecting trade in large civil aircraft. The panel reviewing the U.S. complaint about EC 

measures circulated its report to members on June 30, 2010. That report and the 

procedural history of the dispute are summarized below in this chapter (dispute DS316, 

European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft). The panel 

reviewing the EC complaint about U.S. measures circulated its report on March 31, 2011 

(DS353, United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—Second 

Complaint). That report will be summarized in the Year in Trade 2011 report. The panel 

decisions in both disputes have been appealed to the Appellate Body. 

There were also developments in several disputes in the post-panel, post-Appellate Body 

phase relating to arbitration and efforts to avoid countermeasures. In one such dispute, 

the United States and Brazil in June 2010 announced that they had reached a framework 

agreement in the cotton dispute to avert the imposition of Brazilian countermeasures of 

more than $560 million on U.S. exports and possible countermeasures relating to U.S. 

intellectual property rights. Previously, WTO panels and the Appellate Body had ruled 

that certain U.S. agricultural support payments and guarantees are inconsistent with U.S. 

WTO commitments and WTO arbitration awards. 61 

New Requests for Consultations and New Panels Established 

During 2010, WTO members filed 17 new requests for WTO dispute settlement 

consultations, compared with 14 in 2009 and 19 in 2008. Seven new dispute settlement 

panels were established in 2010, compared with 10 panels established in 2009 and 5 in 

2008. Table 3.3 lists the WTO case numbers and names of the seven disputes. 

Requests for consultations filed during 2010 in which the United States was the 

complaining party or named respondent 

The United States was the complaining party or the named respondent in six of the 17 

requests for dispute settlement consultations filed during 2010. It was the complaining 

party in four requests (excise taxes maintained by the Philippines on distilled spirits,62

measures by China affecting electronic payment services, 63 countervailing duties and 

antidumping duties imposed by China on grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel from 

the United States,64 and measures by China concerning wind power equipment65). As of 

 59 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. 60 WTO, DSB, DS394: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, online 

summary. 61 USTR, “U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework,” June 17, 2010. For more information on this agreement, see 

the chapter 5 section on Brazil. 62 WTO, DSB, DS403: Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits, online summary. 63 WTO, DSB, DS413: China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services, online summary. 

See also USTR, “United States Files Two WTO Cases Against China, September 15, 2010. 64 WTO, DSB DS414: China—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled 

Electrical Steel from the United States, online summary. See also USTR, “United States Files Two WTO 

Cases Against China,” September 2010. 
3-15 

TABLE 3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2010

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name Panel established 

DS396 EC Philippines Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits Jan. 19, 2010 

DS399 China United States United States—Measures Affecting 

Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle 

and Light Truck Tyres from China 

Jan. 19, 2010 

DS402 Korea, 

Republic of 

United States United States—Use of Zeroing in AntiDumping Measures Involving Products 

from Korea 

May 18, 2010 

DS403 United States Philippines Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits April 20, 2010 

DS404 Vietnam United States United States—Anti-dumping Measures 

on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam 

May 18, 2010 

DS405 China EU European Union—Anti-Dumping 

Measures on Certain Footwear from 

China 

May 18, 2010 

DS406 Indonesia United States United States—Measures Affecting the 

Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes 

July 20, 2010 

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed April 

14, 2011). 

the end of 2010, the United States had requested establishment of a panel in only one of 

the four complaints—the one involving taxes imposed by the Philippines on distilled 

spirits. The complaint against the Philippines and its yearend 2010 status are summarized 

below in the section on panels established during 2010. 

Two complaints named the United States as the respondent—one filed by Vietnam (U.S. 

antidumping measures on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam) and a second filed by 

Indonesia (U.S. measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes). Panels 

were requested and established during 2010 in both disputes. 

Panels established during 2010 at the request of the United States 

As noted above, during 2010, the DSB established one panel at the request of the United 

States, to consider a U.S. complaint about Philippine taxes that discriminate against 

imported distilled spirits by taxing them at a higher rate than domestic spirits. The issues 

raised and the procedural history of the dispute are summarized below. 

Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits (DS403). In this dispute, the United States 

challenged the Philippines’ taxes on distilled spirits, asserting that the Philippines’ taxes 

on such spirits discriminate against imported distilled spirits by taxing them at a 

substantially higher rate than domestic spirits. The United States alleged that such 

measures are inconsistent with Article II: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. The DSB established a panel on April 20, 2010, and the 

 65 WTO, DSB, DS419: China—Measures Concerning Wind Power Equipment, online summary. See also 

USTR, “United States Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Consultations on China’s Subsidies for Wind 

Power Equipment Manufacturers,” December 22, 2010. 
3-16 

Director-General composed a panel on July 5, 2010. On December 16, 2010, the 

chairman of the panel notified the DSB that the panel expects to issue its final report by 

June 2011.66 

Panels established during 2010 in which the United States was the named respondent 

During 2010, the DSB established four panels in which the United States was the named 

respondent. As of the end of 2010, panel reports were still pending in three of these 

disputes, which are described below. A panel report was issued with respect to the fourth 

dispute (United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and 

Light Truck Tyres from China (DS399)), which is described in a later section covering 

cases in which panel reports were issued in 2010. 

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 saw blades and parts thereof. Korea argued that the use of zeroing by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce 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 matter was still pending at the end of 2010.67 

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. After the consultations failed to resolve the dispute, Vietnam requested 

establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on May 18, 2010, 

and at the request of Vietnam, the Director-General composed the panel on July 26, 2010. 

In January 2011, the chairman of the panel notified the DSB that the panel envisioned 

that a report would be issued to the parties in April 2011.68

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. legislation signed into law on June 22, 2009,69 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 

 66 WTO, DSB, DS403: Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits, online summary. See also USTR, “U.S. 

Files WTO Case Challenging Philippine Excise Taxes,” January 2010; USTR, “United States Requests WTO 

Panel over Philippine Excise Taxes,” March 26, 2010. 67 WTO, DSB, DS402: United States—Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures Involving Products from 

Korea, online summary. The panel circulated its report on January 18, 2011, and the panel report was 

adopted by the DSB on February 24, 2011. 68 WTO, DSB, DS404: United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam, online 

summary. 69 Family Smoking Prevention Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Public Law 111-31. 
3-17 

resolve the dispute, Indonesia requested establishment of a panel, and the DSB 

established a panel at its meeting on July 20, 2010; the parties agreed to the composition 

of the panel on September 9, 2010. 70 The matter was pending at the end of 2010. 

Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or Adopted during 2010 that 

Involve the United States 

During 2010, the DSB adopted panel and/or Appellate Body reports in original disputes71

in four cases in which the United States was the complainant or a respondent (table 3.4). 

Panel reports issued during 2010 in three other disputes in which the United States was 

the complainant or a respondent were either under appeal before the Appellate Body at 

yearend 2010 or pending possible appeal. 

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 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (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 other various 

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, 

butcompletion 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 imports into the European market, the 

displacement of U.S. LCA exports in Australia, Brazil, China, Chinese Taipei, Korea, 

Mexico, and Singapore, 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 covered in the panel report and 

certain legal interpretations to the Appellate Body. On August 19, 2010, the United States 

appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations. On September 17, 2010, the 

 70 WTO, DSB, DS406: United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, 

online summary. 71 As opposed to panel and Appellate Body reports issued in subsequent compliance proceedings. 
3-18 

TABLE 3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body reports adopted in 2010

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name Report adopted 

DS363 United States China China—Measures Affecting Trading 

Rights and Distribution Services for 

Certain Publications and Audiovisual 

Entertainment Products 

Jan. 19, 2010 

DS367 New Zealand Australia Australia—Measures Affecting the 

Importation of Apples from New Zealand 

Dec. 17, 2010 

DS375 United States EC and member 

states 

European Communities and its Member 

States—Tariff Treatment of Certain 

Information Technology Products 

Sept. 21, 2010 

DS376 Japan EC and member 

states 

European Communities and its Member 

States—Tariff Treatment of Certain 

Information Technology Products 

Sept. 21, 2010 

DS377 Chinese Taipei EC and member 

states 

European Communities and its Member 

States—Tariff Treatment of Certain 

Information Technology Products 

Sept. 21, 2010 

DS383 Thailand United States United States—Antidumping Measures on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand 

Feb. 18, 2010 

DS392 China United States United States—Certain Measures 

Affecting Imports of Poultry from China 

Oct. 25, 2010 

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed April 14, 

2011). 

Appellate Body notified the DSB that it would not be able to issue its report within 60 

days due to the size of the record and the complexity of the appeal. The Appellate Body 

indicated that it would hold oral hearings in November and December 2010 and estimate 

thereafter when it would circulate its report.72 

China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain 

Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (DS363). In this dispute, the 

United States challenged various Chinese measures that reserve import rights to films and 

audiovisual entertainment products to Chinese state-designated firms and also challenged 

Chinese measures imposing market access restrictions or discriminatory limitations on 

foreign service providers seeking to distribute publications and audiovisual home 

entertainment products. The Appellate Body circulated its report in this dispute on 

December 21, 2009, and the DSB adopted the panel report in this matter, as modified by 

the Appellate Body report, on January 19, 2010. In general, the panel agreed with the 

United States and the Appellate Body upheld most of the panel’s conclusions. The panel 

and Appellate Body reports and procedural history were described in more detail in the 

Commission’s Year in Trade 2009 report. At the February 18, 2010, DSB meeting, 

China informed the DSB of its intention to implement the DSB recommendations and 

rulings, but said that it would need a reasonable amount of time to do so. On July 12, 

2010, China and the United States informed the DSB that they had agreed that the 

reasonable period of time would be 14 months from the date of adoption of the Appellate 

Body and panel reports, or by March 19, 2011. 

 72 WTO, DSB, DS316: European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, online 

summary. See also USTR, “United States Achieves Landmark Victory,” June 30, 2010; USTR, “Fighting 

Unfair Trade Practices,” June 30, 2010.
3-19 

European Communities and Its Member States—Tariff Treatment of Certain 

Information Technology Products (DS375). In this dispute the United States 

challenged the tariff treatment that the EC and its member states accord to certain 

information technology products (flat panel computer monitors, set-top boxes, and 

multifunction printers) and claimed that this treatment does not respect their 

commitments to provide duty-free treatment for these products under the Information 

Technology Agreement. The United States also claimed that a number of EC customs 

classification instruments alone or in combination with EEC Council Regulation No. 

2658/87, and certain amended explanatory notes published in the EC Official Journal

after the application of these notes, are inconsistent with the EC’s and member states’ 

obligations under Articles II and X of GATT 1994. Japan and Chinese Taipei filed 

similar complaints (DS376 and DS377). The United States, Japan, and Chinese Taipei 

jointly and severally requested establishment of a panel; the panel was established on 

September 23, 2008, and composed on January 22, 2009. 

The panel circulated its reports to members on August 16, 2010. The panel in general 

found that the EC had acted inconsistently with Articles II and X of the GATT 1994 in 

their tariff treatment of flat panel displays, set-top boxes, and multifunctional digital 

machines, and recommended that the DSB request the EC to bring the relevant measures 

into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994. The DSB adopted the panel 

reports at its meeting on September 21, 2010. On December 20, 2010, the United States 

and the EU informed the DSB that they had agreed that a reasonable time for the EU to 

implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB was by June 30, 2011.73

Reports in which the United States was the respondent 

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 countervailingduty investigations involving imports from China (DS379), 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 rejected most of 

China’s claims. The panel also agreed with the United States that China’s claims 

regarding “double remedy” fell outside the panel’s terms of reference and also 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.74 

 73 WTO, DSB, DS375: European Communities and Its Member States—Tariff Treatment of Certain 

Information Technology Products, online summary. See also USTR, “United States Wins WTO Dispute,” 

August 16, 2010. 74 WTO, DSB, DS379: United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Products from China, online summary. See also USTR, “United States Prevails in WTO Countervailing 

Duty Dispute,” October 22, 2010. The Appellate Body circulated its reports to members on March 11, 2011, 

reversing several of the panel’s findings, including its finding on “double remedies.” 
3-20 

United States—Antidumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand (DS383). In this dispute, Thailand challenged the U.S. practice of “zeroing” 

negative antidumping margins in calculating overall weighted-average dumping margins 

in an investigation involving polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand (DS383). 

Thailand alleged that the effect of this practice is either to create margins of dumping 

where none exist or to inflate margins of dumping. Thailand alleged that the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s use of this practice is inconsistent with U.S. obligations 

under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement. 

After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, Thailand requested establishment of a 

panel. A panel was established on March 20, 2009, and composed on August 20, 2009. 

The panel circulated its report to members on January 22, 2010. The panel found that the 

United States had acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement 

by using zeroing and recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its 

measures into conformity with its obligations under the Antidumping Agreement. The 

DSB adopted the panel report on February 18, 2010. On March 19, 2010, the United 

States informed the DSB that it intended to implement the DSB recommendations and 

rulings, and on August 31, 2010, the United States advised the DSB that it had done so.75

United States—Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China (DS392).

In this dispute, China challenged U.S. measures in section 727 of the Omnibus 

Appropriations Act of 2009. China alleged that these measures effectively prohibit 

Chinese poultry from being imported into the United States because the legislation 

prohibits the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using funds for this purpose. After 

consultations failed to resolve the dispute, China requested establishment of a panel, and 

a panel was established in July 2009 and composed in late September 2009.76 Also in late 

September 2009, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation that sought to address the issue.77 

In its report circulated on September 29, 2010, the panel found that section 727 was 

inconsistent with the SPS Agreement in several respects and also with Articles I:1 and 

XI:1 of the GATT 1994, and that it was not justified under Article XX(b) of the GATT 

1994. However, the panel did not recommend that the DSB request the United States to 

bring the measure (section 727) into conformity with its obligations under the SPS 

Agreement and the GATT 1994 because section 727 had already expired. The DSB 

adopted the panel report on October 25, 2010. 78 

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 et seq.).79 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 pursuant to 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. 

 75 WTO, DSB, DS383: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand, online summary. 76 WTO, DSB, DS392: United States—Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China, online 

summary. 77 USTR, “USDA, USTR Applaud Agreement by Congressional Appropriators,” September 25, 2009. 78 WTO, DSB, DS392: United States—Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China, online 

summary. 79 See chapter 2 section on safeguard actions for more details. 
3-21 

The panel disagreed with China on all substantive points. The panel found that the 

subject imports were increasing rapidly, both absolutely and relatively, in accordance 

with paragraph 16 of the protocol; rejected China’s “as such” argument with respect to 

the causation standard under paragraph 16 of the protocol; rejected China’s arguments 

with respect to claims that the USITC failed to properly demonstrate that the subject 

imports were a “significant cause” of market disruption; found that China had failed to 

establish a prima facie case in relation to its remedy claims under paragraph 16 of the 

protocol; and found that China’s claims under GATT 1994 were dependent on its claims 

under paragraph 16 of the protocol and that they were therefore similarly unsuccessful. 

The panel concluded that the United States did not fail to comply with its obligations 

under paragraph 16 of the protocol and Articles I:1 and II:1 of the GATT 1994, and that 

there was no “as such” violation of the U.S. statute implementing the causation standard 

of paragraph 16 of the protocol. 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 agreed at its meeting on February 7, 2011. 80 

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 2010, there were 34 OECD members.81

Ministerial Council Meeting 

The OECD Council held its ministerial-level meeting May 27–28, 2010, in Paris, France. 

Participants discussed the state of the global economic recovery, which had been 

underway for several months following the financial and economic crisis in 2008–09.82

OECD members discussed experiences with measures taken and prospects for the use of 

others designed to sustain the recovery, in particular issues involving fiscal consolidation; 

employment; structural reforms; various sources of growth—notably trade and 

investment, innovation, and so-called green growth; propriety, integrity, and 

transparency; economic development; and not least, global economic cooperation. 

Regarding fiscal consolidation, the members recognized that the fiscal positions of most 

OECD countries had deteriorated significantly following the financial crisis of 2008, and 

that fiscal action—such as medium-term policies designed to stabilize and lower the 

public debt, prioritize public spending, and pursue growth-friendly tax reform—would be 

needed to promote sustainable growth following economic recovery. Concerning 

employment measures, members agreed to target active labor market policies in the near 

term—including support for job search programs, enhanced education and training, and 

appropriate social protection safety net programs—to avoid so-called jobless growth. On 

structural reform, the OECD member countries committed to encourage both member 

and nonmember countries to undertake fiscal consolidation, take appropriate 

 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 Section 421,” 

December 13, 2010. 81 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, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 

Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. 82 OECD, “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level,” May 28, 2010. 
3-22 

unemployment measures, and address issues such as aging populations and inequality, in 

order to strengthen their economies’ resilience to possible future shocks. 

At their ministerial meeting, the council highlighted three major sources of future 

growth—green growth, innovation, and trade and investment matters. The ministers 

welcomed the interim report on the Green Growth Strategy, looking forward to the 

synthesis report containing policy recommendations and strategies at the 2011 ministerial 

meeting. Ministers also welcomed the final report on the OECD Innovation Strategy, 

aimed at raising productivity worldwide through its focus on worker education and 

training; economic framework conditions, such as regulation and tax policies; 

entrepreneurship capabilities, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises; and 

improved public research systems to develop and protect intellectual property rights. 

Ministers also stressed the important role of open markets in maintaining and increasing 

economic growth and employment, and voiced their commitment to conclude the Doha 

Round of multilateral trade negotiations and to foster trade and investment policies 

facilitating environmentally friendly goods. The ministers welcomed the formal launch of 

an effort to update the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises aimed at 

extending responsible business conduct to further open markets. In addition, the members 

endorsed the OECD Declaration on Propriety, Integrity, and Transparency in the Conduct 

of International Business and Finance. 

Addressing economic development, the members reaffirmed their support for reaching 

the Millennium Development Goals in 2015, above and beyond the official development 

assistance already contributed by the OECD countries. Ministers agreed to continue 

global economic cooperation, working closely in OECD bodies with various groups of 

nonmember countries, including the five partner countries in the Enhanced Engagement 

process (Brazil, India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, and South Africa). 

Trade Committee 

In February 2010, the OECD Trade Committee discussed the implications of trade policy 

responses to the global economic crisis by members and other countries.83 Members 

pointed out that the use of protectionist trade measures has appeared to be relatively 

restrained to date. For the medium and longer terms, members highlighted three issues 

likely to warrant further consideration to support recovery of global trade flows: (1) 

persistent global imbalances that are likely to require attention from surplus as well as 

deficit countries; (2) the reshaping of global supply chains that appears to be hastening 

the international transmission of economic impacts; and (3) the possibility of 

environmentally sustainable economic growth in both developed and developing 

countries. 

At its meeting in May 2010, Trade Committee members discussed the May ministerial 

meeting and continued to discuss trade policies likely to help foster global economic 

recovery. 84 At its final 2010 meeting in December, the committee heard about the 

economic impact of export restrictions on raw materials and about the current OECD 

work on export credits and credit guarantees, as well as a report on the 2010 Global 

Forum on Trade, which focused on globalization, comparative advantage, and trade 

policy. 85 The committee heard reports on recent developments in regional economic 

integration in the Asia-Pacific region, on progress in developing an OECD trade 

 83 OECD, “Summary Record of the 154th Session,” March 1, 2011. 

84 OECD, “Summary Record of the 155th Session,” March 1, 2011. 

85 OECD, “Aide-memoire: Plenary Session,” March 3, 2011. 
3-23 

restrictiveness index for services, and on OECD activities concerning trade and 

employment issues. 

Export Credit Arrangement and Aircraft Sector Understanding 

The Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits, developed within the OECD 

framework, entered into effect in April 1978. The arrangement aims to encourage 

exporters in participating countries to compete on the price and quality of their goods and 

services, not on the support they receive from their governments in the form of official 

export credits or other official support. The arrangement includes four sector 

understandings, addressing (1) ships, (2) nuclear power plants, (3) civil aircraft, and (4) 

renewable energies and water projects, which are appended to the arrangement in 

annexes I through IV, respectively. At the end of 2010, the participants in the 

arrangement were Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, 

Switzerland, and the United States.86

The Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft (“Aircraft Sector 

Understanding” or ASU) was incorporated into the arrangement in 1986.87 The ASU 

covers all civil aircraft—from jumbo jets to small planes and helicopters—and addresses 

interest rates, loan guarantees, and other conditions applied to export credits for aircraft 

sales. The ASU sets maximum repayment periods, minimum risk premium rates, and 

interest rates charged by official export credit agencies’ financing of sales of commercial 

aircraft.88

From 2005 to 2007, participants held talks to revise the ASU, including in the 

negotiations for the first time a non-OECD member, Brazil. On July 1, 2007, 89 the 

revised ASU entered into force, including Brazil as a participant, updating several 

provisions to facilitate the exchange of information and resolution of possible disputes.90

At the end of 2009, the participants decided to negotiate further revisions,91 this time 

including as observers to the talks two other non-OECD members—China and Russia. 

By December 2010, participants had reached a negotiated agreement in principle on 

revised ASU terms,92 which was formally signed in February 2011. 

The revised understanding unifies into a single category––applying to both large and 

regional aircraft––the three categories of commercial aircraft and their separate financing 

terms and procedures found under the 2007 ASU. 93 The revised ASU narrows the 

difference between government export finance and commercial credit rates by raising the 

minimum interest rate that official export credit agencies in participating countries may 

charge for large commercial aircraft, 94 although it allows a transition period for 

previously ordered aircraft to be covered under existing financing terms. It also creates a 

maximum 12-year term for export credit support.95

 86 OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Participants to the Arrangement, “Arrangement on Officially 

Supported Export Credits,” March 3, 2011, 5–6, par. 1–6. 87 OECD, “Agreement in Principle Reached on Export Credits,” December 22, 2010. 

88 OECD, “Brazil joins OECD Countries in Landmark Pact,” July 30, 2007. 89 OECD, “2007 Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft,” September 5, 2007. 90 OECD, “Agreement in Principle Reached on Export Credits,” December 22, 2010. 

91 OECD, “Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft,” n.d. (accessed March 10, 2011). 92 OECD, “Trade: Agreement in Principle reached,” December 22, 2010. 

93 OECD, “OECD Invites China and Russia,” February 25, 2011. 

94 Inside Washington Publishers, “Countries Agree on ‘Home Market Rule’ Deviations,” January 6, 2011. 95 OECD, “OECD Invites China and Russia to join new aircraft financing agreement,” February 25, 2011. 

The revised ASU entered into effect on February 1, 2011, incorporated into the March 2011 version of the 
3-24 

Accessions 

In May 2007, the OECD Council invited five countries––Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia, 

and Slovenia––to open accession discussions with the organization. Four of these 

countries––Chile, Estonia, Israel, and Slovenia––became new OECD members during 

2010 bringing total OECD membership to 34.96 Russia’s accession has lagged, despite 

the high-level commitment of Russian leadership to include OECD membership as part 

of national policies to modernize the country.97 Language difficulties have been cited as a 

key impediment, with exchanges between OECD and key Russian ministries and 

agencies often remaining incomplete due to insufficient capacity to translate information 

and data adequately or in a timely way. The OECD view that WTO membership is a 

prerequisite for OECD accession is also considered a possible obstacle,98 given Russia’s 

current priority of forming a Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan customs union over its WTO 

accession. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

APEC is an international organization that consists of Pacific Basin countries seeking to 

enhance intra-regional economic growth and cooperation.99 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.100 To reach its objectives, member countries committed to the “Bogor 

Goals” in 1994, named after the summit in Bogor, Indonesia. The Bogor Goals set forth a 

timetable for creating a free and open trade and investment area in the Asia-Pacific region 

by 2010 for the industrialized countries and by 2020 for the developing countries.101

At the November 2010 annual APEC summit in Yokohama, Japan, ministers responded 

to an assessment of member economies’ progress toward the Bogor Goals, discussed how 

APEC’s aspirations toward a Free Trade Area of the Pacific could be achieved through 

pathways presented by existing and future regional trade agreements, and developed a 

new comprehensive long-term growth strategy. The November meeting also represented 

the culmination of a year-long effort by the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) to 

 Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits under Annex III. At the signing ceremony for the 2011 

ASU on February 25, 2011, the OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría invited Russia and China—who 

participated in the 2010 discussions—to join the participating governments, particularly in light of their 

production of regional jet aircraft. OECD, “Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits,” March 3, 

2011; OECD, “Aircraft Sector Understanding,” OECD Web site, February 2, 2011; OECD, “34th Meeting of 

the Group,” November 22, 2007. 96 OECD, “OECD enlargement,” OECD Web site, n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3746,en_2649_201185_38598698_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed March 

15, 2011). 97 For more information on Russia’s accession negotiations, see chapter 5. 98 USDOS, U.S. Embassy, Moscow, Russia and OECD Accession, March 11, 2010. 99 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; the Republic of Korea (Korea); Malaysia; 

Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; the Philippines; Russia; Singapore; Chinese Taipei 

(Taiwan); Thailand; the United States; and Vietnam. For further details, see APEC, APEC at a Glance, 

November 2010, and the APEC Web site, http://www.apec.org/. 100 APEC, APEC at a Glance, November 2010. 101 APEC, Outcomes & Outlook, 2011. 
3-25 

increase regional economic integration by lowering barriers to trade and improving the 

international business environment. 

The 2010 Bogor Goal Target, FTAAP, and Related APEC 

Commitments 

In 2010, APEC members completed an assessment of the progress made by 13 member 

economies (the “2010 economies”102) towards the Bogor Goals. The report cited 15 years 

of trade growth, broad tariff reductions, investment linkages, and the prominence of trade 

in services as examples of significant progress. The report also listed a lack of uniformity 

in tariff reductions across sectors, remaining barriers to services trade, and the prevalence 

of NTMs that restrict trade, and concluded that the 2010 economies had “some way to go 

toward achieving free and open trade and investment.”103 APEC leaders endorsed the 

assessment and recognized the importance of the Bogor Goals as setting a target for all 

APEC economies to achieve free and open trade and investment by 2020.104

The link between APEC and the evolving regional architecture of economic cooperation 

in the Asia-Pacific region became more defined in 2010. Leaders pledged to take steps 

toward realizing a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) that builds on existing 

or developing regional initiatives, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

(ASEAN)+3, ASEAN+6,105 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).106 Senior officials 

involved in TPP negotiations, which included nine APEC members in 2010,107 cited the 

role of APEC in informing the process and content of trade negotiations, and remarked 

on the inclusive nature of TPP negotiations as the most promising path toward an 

FTAAP.108 Japan, which was not involved in TPP negotiations in 2010, participated as an 

observer in TPP-related discussions held on the sidelines of the November 2010 APEC 

summit, coinciding with a Japanese ministerial statement that recognized TPP as the 

“only path to the FTAAP where negotiations have actually begun.”109 The U.S. Trade 

Representative stated a goal to conclude the TPP by the November 2011 APEC summit, 

which will be hosted by the United States in Honolulu.110

APEC trade ministers recognized in June that the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) was 

stalled, and reaffirmed support for the negotiations. Ministers also renewed a 

commitment to refrain from protectionist measures through 2011, even if such measures 

were deemed WTO-consistent.111 At the APEC leaders’ meeting in November, heads of 

state set forth a growth strategy, which focused on sustainable growth policies, including 

 102 The 2010 economies include five industrialized countries that had committed to reaching the Bogor 

Goals by 2010—the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand—as well as eight developing 

countries that volunteered to be part of the 2010 assessment—Chile, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, 

Peru, Singapore, and Taiwan. 103 APEC, Report on APEC’s 2010 Economies’ Progress, November 2010, 85–89. 104 APEC, “Leaders’ Statement on the 2010 Bogor Goals Assessment,” November 14, 2010; APEC, 

“Leaders’ Declaration,” November 13–14, 2010, 2, 4. 105 ASEAN+3 is composed of the 10 ASEAN members as well as China, Japan, and Korea. ASEAN+6 

also includes Australia, New Zealand, and India. 106 APEC, “Pathways to FTAAP,” November 14, 2010; APEC, “Leaders’ Declaration,” November 13–14, 

2010, 4. 107 For more information on the TPP, see the subsection on FTA developments during 2010 in chapter 4. 108 For examples of citations from senior officials linking the TPP and APEC, see PIIE, “A Trans-Pacific 

Partnership and the Future,” October 25, 2010. 109 ACCJ, “An American in Yokohama,” January 15, 2011; MOFA, “Basic Policy on Comprehensive 

Economic Partnerships,” November 6, 2010. 110 Chu and Ten Kate, “U.S. Puts ‘Foot to the Pedal’,” November 2010. 111 APEC, “Supporting the Multilateral Trading System,” June 5–6, 2010. 
3-26 

structural reform, human resource and entrepreneurship development, green growth, a 

knowledge-based economy, and human security.112

Regional Economic Integration 

In addition to providing a forum for leaders to discuss common goals and possible 

pathways toward trade and investment liberalization, APEC pursues an agenda of 

regional economic integration, which relies on developing nonbinding common 

principles, action plans, workshops, and research on best practices. The CTI is the body 

that oversees and coordinates APEC’s work on trade and investment facilitation.113 In 

2010, the CTI continued to work with its own eight subgroups, three industry-specific 

“dialogues,” and a variety of other APEC groups to improve supply chain connectivity, 

facilitate investment and services trade, and increase the ease of doing business, among 

other initiatives. 

After its launch in 2009, the APEC Pathfinder Initiative for Self-Certification of Origin 

(“Pathfinder”) continued to add membership in 2010. 114 The CTI began a capacitybuilding program to support member countries in developing self-certification programs. 

The program’s workshops, which continued into 2011, were designed to help regulators 

and administrators understand the technical requirements of self-certification.115 The CTI 

also launched WebTR, a Web site on tariffs and rules of origin (ROOs) that acts as a 

gateway to detailed tariff and ROOs information from APEC economies. 116 Having 

identified eight critical “chokepoints” in regional supply chains in 2009, the CTI 

developed specific actions to address these impediments, with individual economies 

taking the lead to facilitate these actions. The chokepoints encompass regulatory issues, 

lack of coordination between customs agencies, and inadequate transport networks and 

infrastructure.117 The CTI also agreed to set up a mechanism to foster early dialogue on 

emerging regulatory issues, including technical requirements and standards for traded 

goods.118 

The CTI continued to work on services trade promotion, which is tracked by the APEC 

Services Action Plan. In 2010, this effort included research, workshops, and information 

exchanges relevant to liberalizing of trade in legal, accounting, environmental, health, 

telecommunications, and information services.119 In 2010, APEC formulated a Strategy 

for Investment in order to strengthen investment opportunities as a means toward regional 

economic integration. The strategy has its basis in the APEC Non-binding Investment 

Principles agreed upon in 1994 and the Investment Transparency Standards developed in 

2003. Based on these principles, the strategy is designed to facilitate and promote policies 

 112 APEC, “Leaders’ Declaration,” November 13–14, 2010, 4–6. 113 APEC CTI, 2010 CTI Annual Report to Ministers, November 2010, 3. 114 Pathfinder allows exporters to self-certify a product’s origin in order to avoid the process of applying 

for and submitting an Authorized Certificate of Origin (ACO). By avoiding the ACO process, traders can 

reduce transaction costs and time necessary to fulfill the rules of origin requirements of FTAs, allowing them 

to take advantage of preferential tariffs. In 2010, Pathfinder included nine APEC members. For more 

information on the foundations of the Pathfinder, see APEC, “APEC Ministers Take Concrete Actions,” 

November 12, 2009; APEC CTI, 2009 CTI Annual Report to Ministers, November 2009, Appendix I. 115 APEC CTI, 2010 CTI Annual Report to Ministers, November 2010, 5. 116 APEC, WebTR, http://www.apec.org/Groups/Committee-on-Trade-and-Investment/Rules-ofOrigin/WebTR.aspx (accessed March 21, 2011). 117 APEC CTI, 2010 CTI Annual Report to Ministers, November 2010, Appendix V. 118 Ibid., Appendix IV. 119 Ibid., Appendix I. 
3-27 

that are transparent, are convergent, and create investment opportunities in APEC 

member countries.120

At the APEC Ministerial Meeting in November 2009, ministers initiated an Ease of 

Doing Business (EoDB) Action Plan with the goal of making it 25 percent cheaper, 

faster, and easier to do business within APEC economies by 2015. The EoDB Action 

Plan identified five priority areas for reform, including starting a business; getting credit; 

enforcing contracts; trading across borders; and dealing with permits. In 2010, member 

economies participated in seminars and working groups to share best practices as part of 

the first phase of the Action Plan. The second phase of the plan, in which countries create 

workplans for regulatory reform, began in 2010 and will continue with the same goals.121 

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations successfully concluded on 

November 15, 2010, and the agreement will be open for signature beginning in 2011.122

Participants included Australia, Canada, the EU (with its 27 member states), Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United 

States.123 

The USTR considers ACTA an important new tool to fight the global growth in 

counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property. Key provisions include commitments 

to: 

 Enhance approaches to criminal enforcement, including putting in place stronger 

requirements for (1) applying criminal remedies and (2) seizing fake goods, and 

the equipment and materials used in their manufacture; 

 Combat Internet piracy through a balanced framework that both addresses the 

widespread distribution of pirated works and preserves fundamental principles 

such as freedom of expression; 

 Give customs authorities the ability to act against import and export shipments as 

well as to cooperate on in-transit shipments; 

 Strengthen civil enforcement provisions, including those that address damages 

and recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees; 

 Create cooperation mechanisms among ACTA parties to assist enforcement 

efforts; and 

 Promote strong enforcement practices that lead to meaningful implementation of 

laws on the books.124

ACTA will enter into force after six countries ratify the agreement.125

 120 Ibid., Appendix VII. 121 APEC, “Joint Statement at the 22nd APEC Ministerial Meeting,” November 10–11, 2011. 122 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 155. The ACTA text is 

available on the USTR Web site, http://www.ustr.gov/acta (accessed March 31, 2011). 123 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 156. 124 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 156; U.S. IPEC, 2010 U.S. 

IPEC Annual Report, February 2011, 52–53. 125 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 156. 

4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

U.S. Free Trade Agreements 

This chapter summarizes developments related to U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) 

during 2010. It describes trends in U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners during 

2010, 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 2010 

The United States was a party to 11 FTAs as of December 31, 2010.1 These include the 

U.S.-Oman FTA, which entered into force in 2009; the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion 

Agreement (TPA) (2009); a multiparty FTA with the 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). 

In 2010, total two-way merchandise trade between the United States and its FTA partners 

was $1.0 trillion, or more than one-third of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. 

merchandise exports to FTA partners that year increased by 21.5 percent to $434.7 billion 

and accounted for 38.7 percent of total U.S. exports (table 4.1). U.S. imports of goods 

from FTA partners grew even more strongly, increasing 24.3 percent to $590.1 billion 

and accounting for 31.1 percent of global U.S. imports. 

The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its FTA partners increased by $38.5 billion over 

the 2009 level to $155.4 billion in 2010. The U.S. deficit with its NAFTA partners was 

$166.8 billion, an increase of $43.3 billion from 2009. The United States thus registered a 

trade surplus with its non-NAFTA FTA partners of $11.5 billion in 2010, up sharply from 

$6.7 billion in 2009. The FTA partners with which the United States recorded a 

merchandise trade surplus in 2010 were Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, 

Bahrain, Oman, and Peru, while the United States had a merchandise trade deficit with 

Israel, Canada, Mexico, and the CAFTA-DR countries taken together. 

The value of U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions increased 29.6 percent from 

$240.3 billion in 2009 to $311.3 billion in 2010 (table 4.2). Approximately 44.4 percent 

of total imports from CAFTA-DR partners entered under FTA provisions in 2010. More 

than 60 percent of total imports from Mexico, Jordan, Chile, and Bahrain entered under 

FTA provisions. On the other hand, approximately 15 percent or less of total imports 

 1

 Since 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. 
4-2 

TABLE 4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2008-10a

2008 2009 2010

Millions of $ 

Exports: 

Israel 10,238 6,237 6,479

NAFTA 353,932 277,413 337,558

 Canada 222,424 171,695 205,956

 Mexico 131,507 105,718 131,602

Jordan 904 1,165 1,138

Chile 11,367 8,694 9,903

Singapore 25,655 19,924 26,349

Australia 20,948 18,244 20,296

Morocco 1,506 1,584 1,931

CAFTA-DRb 18,875 18,850 22,735

Bahrain 779 629 1,204

Omanc – 1,065 1,061

Perud – 4,022 6,079

 FTA partner total 444,205 357,826 434,732

 World total 1,169,821 936,745 1,122,131

 FTA partner share of world (percent) 38.0 38.2 38.7

 

Imports: 

Israel 22,264 18,743 20,975

NAFTA 551,168 400,893 504,360

 Canada 334,840 224,584 275,536

 Mexico 216,328 176,309 228,824

Jordan 1,139 924 974

Chile 8,182 6,047 7,068

Singapore 15,718 15,588 17,345

Australia 10,535 7,998 8,610

Morocco 880 467 685

CAFTA-DRb 15,387 18,816 23,701

Bahrain 517 463 420

Omanc – 883 773

Perud – 3,834 5,173

 FTA partner total 625,790 474,656 590,083

 World total 2,090,483 1,549,163 1,898,610

 FTA partner share of world (percent) 29.9 30.6 31.1

 

Trade balance: 

Israel –12,026 –12,506 –14,496

NAFTA –197,236 –123,480 –166,802

 Canada –112,415 –52,889 –69,580

 Mexico –84,821 –70,591 –97,222

Jordan –234 241 164

Chile 3,184 2,646 2,835

Singapore 9,937 4,336 9,005

Australia 10,413 10,246 11,685

Morocco 626 1,117 1,246

CAFTA-DRb

 3,488 34 –966

Bahrain 262 165 784

Omanc – 182 288

Perud – 188 906

 FTA partner total –181,586 –116,829 –155,351

 World total –920,661 –612,419 –776,479

 FTA partner share of world (percent) 19.7 19.1 20.0

Source: USDOC. 

 a Table only includes trade with FTA partners after FTA has entered into force. 

 b CAFTA–DR entered into force for Costa Rica as of January 1, 2009. 

 c FTA was in force as of January 1, 2009. 

 d FTA was in force as of February 1, 2009. 
4-3 

TABLE 4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2008-10a

FTA partner 2008 2009 2010

% change 

2009-10

Millions of $ 

Israel 3,209 2,493 2,726 9.3

NAFTA 306,593 219,664 286,131 30.3

 Canada 166,077 112,373 145,426 29.4

 Mexico 140,516 107,291 140,705 31.1

Jordan 280 240 606 152.6

Chile 4,454 3,453 4,429 28.3

Singapore 1,018 850 1,163 36.7

Australia 4,356 2,758 2,751 –0.2

Morocco 161 114 163 42.5

CAFTA-DR 9,410 9,009 10,513 16.7

 El Salvador 1,685 1,425 1,740 22.1

 Honduras 3,016 2,469 2,889 17.0

 Nicaragua 816 783 935 19.4

 Guatemala 1,635 1,354 1,558 15.1

 Dominican Republic 2,259 1,802 2,088 15.9

 Costa Ricab – 1,176 1,302 10.7

Bahrain 288 258 274 6.4

Omanc

 – 456 350 –23.3

Perud

 – 981 2,224 126.8

 Total imports under FTA provisions 329,770 240,276 311,329 29.6

 World 2,090,483 1,549,163 1,898,610 22.6

 Share of total imports from FTA partner 

Israel 14.4 13.3 13.0

NAFTA 55.6 54.8 56.7

 Canada 49.6 50.0 52.8

 Mexico 65.0 60.9 61.5

Jordan 24.6 26.0 62.2

Chile 54.4 57.1 62.7

Singapore 6.5 5.5 6.7

Australia 41.4 34.5 31.9

Morocco 18.3 24.5 23.8

CAFTA-DR 61.2 47.9 44.4

 El Salvador 75.7 78.2 78.6

 Honduras 74.3 73.8 73.9

 Nicaragua 47.8 48.6 46.5

 Guatemala 47.5 43.2 48.4

 Dominican Republic 57.1 54.5 57.2

 Costa Ricab

 – 21.0 15.0

Bahrain 55.7 55.6 65.3

Omanc

 – 51.7 45.3

Perud

 – 25.6 43.0

 FTA partner total 52.7 50.6 52.8

Source: USDOC. 

 a Table only includes trade with FTA partners after FTA has entered into force. 

 b CAFTA–DR entered into force for Costa Rica as of January 1, 2009. 

 c FTA was in force as of January 1, 2009. 

 d FTA was in force as of February 1, 2009. 

from Israel, Singapore,2 and Costa Rica entered under FTA provisions. Imports that 

entered under FTA provisions accounted for 16.4 percent of total U.S. imports in 2010, 

an increase from 15.5 percent in 2009. 

 2

 The United States has consistently imported less than 7 percent of its total imports from Singapore under 

the U.S.-Singapore FTA. This is because a large share of U.S. imports from Singapore can enter the United 

States NTR duty free. For example, in 2010, over half of U.S. imports from Singapore were certain electrical 

and nonelectrical machinery as well as certain medicaments, which are NTR duty free. 
4-4 

FTA Developments during 2010 

In 2010, the United States and Israel celebrated the 25th anniversary of the U.S.-Israel 

Free Trade Agreement.3

 In December 2009, both countries agreed to extend the 2004 

Agreement Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in Agricultural Products (ATAP) 

through December 31, 2010. The United States-Israel Joint Committee met in October 

2010 and agreed to develop a work plan that would address the remaining barriers to 

bilateral trade, including those in the areas of agriculture and services. As initial steps 

under the work plan, the two sides agreed to pursue negotiations towards a Mutual 

Recognition Agreement (MRA) for assessing conformity in telecommunications 

equipment, and to facilitate trade by reviewing existing customs procedures and 

regulations. They also made progress on certain market access issues, including 

standards, customs classification, and technical regulations. They agreed to continue talks 

through the U.S.-Israel Working Group on Standards and Technical Regulations, which 

last met in July 2010.4

 

The United States issued a statement on July 30, 2010, expressing its concern that the 

government of Peru had not taken the necessary steps to ensure complete implementation 

of the Annex on Forest Sector Governance under the U.S.-Peru TPA by the August 1, 

2010, deadline. This annex, part of the Environment Chapter of the U.S.-Peru TPA, was 

the first set of provisions in any U.S. FTA that identified specific actions required to 

address an environmental concern. 5 

The status of many pending FTAs remained unchanged throughout 2010. FTAs with 

Colombia, Panama, and Korea, which were signed by both parties in previous years, were 

all awaiting congressional approval as of the end of 2010.6

 There were no changes in the 

status of other previously initiated FTA negotiations with Ecuador, the South African 

Customs Union, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, or countries involved with the 

Free Trade Area of the Americas. The United States initiated bilateral FTA negotiations 

with Malaysia in 2006, but in 2010 Malaysia became the ninth country to join 

negotiations to conclude a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that would include 

the United States. The status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2010 is shown in table 4.3. 

Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement 

During 2010, CAFTA-DR officials met several times to prepare for CAFTA-DR’s first 

Free Trade Commission (FTC) meeting in early 2011.7

 In June 2010, USTR officials held 

technical-level meetings with officials of the other CAFTA-DR member countries to 

discuss administration and oversight issues and to advance institutional work and 

planning for the FTC meeting. In August and September 2010, USTR officials met with 

government and private sector officials in the five Central American partners to discuss 

bilateral and regional trade issues, to exchange experiences, and to prepare for the FTC 

meeting. In November 2010, CAFTA vice-ministers met in Washington, DC, to prepare 

 3

 USTR, “Israel Free Trade Agreement,” Free Trade Agreements, October 20, 2010. 

4

 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 120. 5

 USTR, “Statement by Ambassador Ron Kirk on the Annex,” July 30, 2010. 6

 In November 2010, the United States and Korea reached an agreement resolving outstanding issues with 

the U.S.-Korea FTA related to trade in automobiles. See the chapter 5 section on Korea for more information. 7

 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 117. 
4-5 

TABLE 4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2010 

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 – 

Panama Apr. 26, 2004 Dec. 19, 2006 June 28, 2007 – 

Korea Feb. 2, 2006 Apr. 1, 2007 June 30, 2007 – 

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. 

an agenda for the FTC focused on expanding and broadening the benefits of trade, 

particularly with respect to small and medium-sized enterprises.8

 

On July 30, 2010, USTR announced that the United States would file a case against 

Guatemala under the CAFTA-DR for apparent violations of obligations on labor rights.9

This represents the first labor case the United States has ever brought against a trade 

agreement partner. Under Article 16.2.1(a) of the CAFTA-DR, each party to the 

agreement has committed that it will not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws, through 

a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade between 

the parties.10 Of concern is the government of Guatemala’s failure to meet its obligation 

to effectively enforce Guatemalan labor laws related to the right of association, the right 

to organize and bargain collectively, and the right to acceptable conditions of work. The 

case request stems from an April 2008 submission filed with the U.S. Department of 

Labor under the labor chapter (chapter 16) of CAFTA-DR by U.S. and Guatemalan labor 

unions.11 In 2010, a U.S. interagency delegation engaged in formal consultations under 

chapter 16 of the CAFTA-DR with the government of Guatemala regarding its failure to 

enforce labor court orders in cases of labor violations.12

The Dominican Republic Earned Import Allowance Program (EIAP), which became 

effective on December 1, 2008, 13 authorized additional duty-free treatment for certain 

apparel articles entering under the CAFTA-DR. The EIAP allows producers who 

purchase a certain quantity of qualifying U.S. fabric14 for the manufacture of certain pants 

and bottoms of cotton (excluding denim) in the Dominican Republic to receive a credit 

 8

 Ibid. On February 23, 2011, at the FTC meeting in San Salvador, El Salvador, the USTR announced 

changes to the CAFTA-DR designed to advance regional trade and economic integration in the textile and 

apparel sector. The changes of particular significance included those related to rules of origin for textile and 

apparel goods. For example, certain monofilament sewing thread must now originate or be produced in the 

United States or the CAFTA-DR region to qualify for preferential tariff treatment. Other important changes 

included increases in cumulation limits to encourage greater integration of regional production through 

limited reciprocal duty-free access with Mexico and Canada to be used in Central American and Dominican 

Republic apparel. USTR, “Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement,” 

March 2, 2011; USTR, “Joint Statement from the Meeting,” February 23, 2011. 9

 USTR, “USTR Kirk Announces Labor Rights Trade Enforcement Case,” July 30, 2010. 10 USTR, “Letter to the Honorable Edgar Alfredo Rodriguez,” July 30, 2010; USTR, “Remarks by 

Ambassador Ron Kirk,” Washington, Pennsylvania, July 30, 2010. 11 USDOL, “U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis Announces Labor Consultations,” July 30, 2010. 12 USDOS, “2011 Investment Climate Statement—Guatemala,” March 2011. 13 On October 16, 2008, the President signed Public Law 110-436, which amended title IV of the U.S.-

CAFTA-DR Act to establish the Earned Import Allowance Program for the Dominican Republic. 14 As defined in section 404(c)(4) of the act, qualifying fabrics are “wholly formed in the United States 

from yarns wholly formed in the United States” that are “suitable for use in the manufacture of” the eligible 

articles. On July 29, 2010, OTEXA (USDOC) announced its decision to maintain its interpretation of 

“wholly formed” fabric to require that all production processes—starting with weaving, including dyeing and 

finishing, and ending with a fabric ready for cutting or assembly—take place in the United States. 75 Fed. 

Reg. 45603 (August 3, 2010). 
4-6 

that can be used to ship a certain quantity of eligible apparel using third-country fabrics 

from the Dominican Republic to the United States duty-free. Specifically, for every two 

square meter equivalents of qualifying U.S. fabric purchased for apparel production by 

producers in the Dominican Republic, one square meter equivalent credit is received that 

can be used in the importation of apparel using nonqualifying fabric. 

On July 28, 2010, the Commission submitted its first annual review of the effectiveness 

of the EIAP to the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee 

on Finance.15 In its review, which covered U.S. imports entering under the program from 

April 2009 through March 2010, the Commission reported that based on information 

gathered from industry sources, the EIAP had some initial beneficial effect for both the 

U.S. and Dominican industries. The program reportedly helped slow job losses and 

production declines in the Dominican cotton trouser sector, allowed Dominican apparel 

producers and U.S. apparel companies that import woven cotton bottoms from the 

Dominican Republic to be more cost-competitive by permitting duty-free treatment for 

woven cotton bottoms made from lower-cost foreign fabrics, and benefited U.S. textile 

firms that dye and finish fabrics woven in third countries. Users of the program have, 

however, also recommended changes, such as shifting the 2-for-1 ratio to 1-for-1, adding 

to the types of fabrics considered to qualify, and offering more training so that more 

companies can take advantage of the EIAP. 

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 

The United States and the other TPP countries—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, 

New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam 16 —concluded four formal rounds of 

negotiations during 2010. The opening round was held in March 2010, and the second 

round in June 2010, when talks focused on four key goals: (1) determining the 

architecture for market access negotiations; (2) deciding the relationship between the TPP 

and existing FTAs among the negotiating partners; (3) addressing horizontal issues, such 

as small business priorities, regulatory coherence, and other issues that reflect the way 

businesses operate and workers interact; and (4) proceeding toward the tabling of text on 

all chapters of the agreement in the third negotiating round. 17 In the third round in 

October, negotiations focused on preparation of a consolidated text and proposals for 

cooperation. Discussions also covered the promotion of competitiveness, supply chain 

development, and making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to take 

advantage of the eventual TPP agreement.18 In December 2010, the United States and the 

other TPP countries concluded the fourth round of TPP negotiations in New Zealand, 

where 24 negotiating groups worked to develop the legal text in each of the negotiating 

areas “that will detail the rights and obligations each country will assume, covering the 

full scope of commercial and trade-related issues between the countries.”19 They also 

finalized technical details necessary to prepare initial market access offers for goods, 

 15 The Commission instituted investigation No. 332-503, Earned Import Allowance Program: Evaluation 

of the Effectiveness of the Program for Certain Apparel from the Dominican Republic, on April 29, 2009, for 

the purpose of preparing the reports required by section 404(d) of the Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Implementation Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 4112(d)). Section 404 was added to 

the act by section 2 of Public Law 110-436, approved October 16, 2008, “An Act to Extend the Andean 

Trade Preference Act, and for Other Purposes.” 16 Malaysia formally became a TPP partner in October 2010. 

17 USTR, “USTR Ron Kirk Comments,” June 18, 2010; USTR, “USTR Negotiators Report Successful 

First Round,” March 19, 2010. 18 USTR, “Round 3: Brunei, Update on Trans-Pacific Partnership,” October 7, 2010. 19 USTR, “Positive Outcome from Fourth Round,” December 10, 2010. 
4-7 

which countries planned to exchange in early 2011.20 TPP partners are hoping to “make 

as much progress as possible” by the APEC leaders’ meeting in November 2011.21

On October 5, 2010, following detailed consultations with the United States and other 

TPP countries, Malaysia formally joined the TPP as a full negotiating member, and 

USTR informed Congress of Malaysia’s inclusion in the TPP negotiations.22 Ambassador 

Ron Kirk of USTR stated that the United States and Malaysia had already conducted indepth discussions about the status of U.S. bilateral free trade agreement negotiations and 

the standards and objectives that the TPP countries are seeking in an agreement.23

In 2010, U.S. merchandise exports to TPP countries increased by 24.2 percent to $81.0 

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 or sinking machines, medicaments, parts of airplanes or helicopters, nonmonetary gold, medical instruments, and telecommunications equipment. U.S. 

merchandise imports from TPP countries increased by 13.1 percent to $81.5 billion in 

2010 compared to 2009. 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 of fresh grapes. In 2010, the United States had a trade deficit of 

$463.3 million, a decrease of 93.2 percent compared to 2009. If concluded, this trade 

agreement would be the second-largest after NAFTA in terms of total trade covered, 

measuring approximately one-fifth the value of total two-way merchandise trade under 

NAFTA in 2010. 

North American Free Trade Agreement24

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.25 In 2010, total two-way (exports plus imports) U.S. merchandise trade with 

NAFTA partners increased by 24.1 percent over 2009, with U.S.-Canada merchandise 

trade amounting to $481.5 billion and U.S.-Mexico merchandise trade totaling $360.4 

billion (table 4.1). The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with NAFTA partners increased to 

$166.8 billion in 2010 from $123.5 billion in the previous year—an increase of 35.1 

percent, in contrast to a decrease of 37.4 percent in 2009. Leading products responsible 

for the deficit include mineral fuels, vehicles and vehicle parts, and electrical and 

nonelectrical machinery. 

 20 Ibid. 

21 USTR, “Strong Sixth Round Progress Propels TPP Negotiations,” April 1, 2011. 

22 USDOS, “Malaysia Determined to Join TPP Negotiations,” June 10, 2010; Government of Malaysia, 

Ministry of International Trade and Industry, “Malaysia Joins the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 

Negotiations,” October 6, 2010. 23 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 141. 24 U.S. bilateral trade relations with Canada and Mexico are described in chapter 5 of this report. 

25 The section on Mexico of chapter 5 discusses NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions. Further 

information on the last remaining restrictions on U.S.-Mexico trade that were removed on January 1, 2008, is 

reported in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, 5-16.
4-8 

TABLE 4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with potential TPP partners,a 2008–10 

Trade with TPP partners 2008 2009 2010 

% change, 

2009–10 

Millions of $ 

U.S. exports 80,375 65,241 81,007 24.2 

U.S. imports 86,793 72,064 81,471 13.1 

Trade balance –6,418 –6,824 –463 –93.2 

Source: USDOC. 

 a Potential partners include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, 

and Vietnam. Malaysia became a TPP partner in October 2010. 

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 2010. 

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. 26 The FTC is responsible for 

overseeing NAFTA’s implementation and elaboration, as well as for its dispute 

settlement provisions.27

The FTC typically meets annually, but it did not meet in 2010. Instead, it met in January 

2011 in Mexico City, Mexico.28 At this meeting, the FTC noted that because all tariff cuts 

under NAFTA were implemented either on time or ahead of schedule, and recognizing 

that NAFTA is a catalyst for the region’s economic recovery, the three countries “are 

developing new and creative ways to increase trade”29 by reducing transaction costs, 

eliminating barriers to trade, and facilitating access to information. To this end, the FTC 

agreed to take several steps. 

For example, in order to reduce or eliminate unnecessary regulatory differences in a way 

that may potentially reduce costs to consumers and businesses, as well as to promote 

deeper economic integration in North America, the FTC initialed the basic terms of a 

mutual recognition agreement (MRA) for telecommunications equipment, with the goal 

of concluding the MRA by May 2011. 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. The FTC also 

noted the renewal of the MRA on accountancy services among NAFTA partners, and 

tasked the relevant NAFTA committees, including the Committee on Standards-Related 

Measures and the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, to continue 

identifying new areas for cooperation.30 

The FTC stated that updating and simplifying the NAFTA rules of origin allows more 

goods to qualify for duty-free treatment under the agreement and reduces transaction 

 26 The representatives are the USTR, Canadian Minister for International Trade, and Mexican Secretary of 

the Economy. 27 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 123. 28 The FTC’s previous annual meeting was in October 2009, in Dallas, Texas. 29 USTR, “Joint Statement from the January 10, 2011 Meeting,” January 10, 2011. 30 Ibid. 
4-9 

costs. The FTC announced that the Working Group on Rules of Origin (WGRO) reached 

a preliminary agreement on a fourth set of changes to the NAFTA rules of origin, to be 

implemented in 2011, on goods that exceed $90 billion dollars of annual trilateral trade.31

This trade includes certain environmental goods, whose annual trilateral trade is 

approximately $6 billion. Moreover, the FTC agreed to start work on technical 

rectifications to align the NAFTA rules of origin with the updated tariff schedules that 

will result from the 2012 amendments to the nomenclature of the global Harmonized 

System. The FTC also directed the WGRO to explore the possibility of making a fifth set 

of changes to the NAFTA rules of origin.32

The FTC discussed ways to help small and medium-sized enterprises take advantage of 

the export opportunities that NAFTA provides. The FTC noted that these enterprises 

typically target their first exports to a NAFTA country, but they lack access to exporting 

information. To address this problem, the FTC released Opportunities for Small and 

Medium-Sized Enterprises in North America, a publication designed to answer 

fundamental questions about starting to export.33

At the meeting, the FTC also agreed to continue its cooperation with both the CEC and 

CLC. To accomplish this, the FTC asked the ad hoc working group of senior trade 

officials to identify potential new areas of collaboration, such as trade flows of used 

electronics in North America, green buildings, and greening North America’s 

transportation corridors.34 The FTC also asked the senior trade officials responsible for 

labor to continue to cooperate with their counterparts in the CLC, including the CLC’s 

Secretariat, to discuss specific strategies to improve the labor side agreement and its 

functioning. 35 Finally, the FTC agreed that Canada will host the next NAFTA FTC 

meeting. 

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 and the secretariat, to provide publicly available information 

to the secretariat and the other parties, and to provide for the submission and review of 

public communications on labor law matters.36 In the United States, that office is the 

Division of Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation (TAATC) 

within the Department of Labor.37 The NAOs and the Secretariat also carry out the 

Ministerial Council’s Cooperative Activities program. 

 31 Further information on the two most recent sets of changes to the NAFTA rules of origin appears in 

USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, 4-8. 32 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 123. 33 USTR, “Joint Statement from the January 10, 2011 Meeting,” January 10, 2011; USTR, “Making 

NAFTA Work for U.S. Small and Medium-Sized Business,” fact sheet, January 10, 2011. 34 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 123. 35 USTR, “Joint Statement of the 2009 NAFTA Commission Meeting,” October 21, 2009; USTR, 2011 

Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 123. 36 CLC, “The National Administrative Offices” (accessed March 25, 2011). 37 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, “Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation” (accessed March 

25, 2011).
4-10 

On January 29, 2010, the Mexican Union of Electrical Workers filed a submission 

alleging that the government of Mexico failed to adequately enforce its labor laws and 

uphold its commitment to the NAALC. A decision as to whether to accept the submission 

for review has been deferred due to ongoing legal proceedings in Mexico related to the 

submission.38

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 

States, Canada, and Mexico;39 (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.40

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.41 At the end of 2010, 13 complaint files remained active under articles 14 

and 15, 3 of which were submitted in 2010 (table 4.5). During 2010, 1 active file 

involved the United States, 5 involved Canada, and 7 involved Mexico. 

At the seventeenth regular session of the CEC Council on August 17, 2010, in 

Guanajuato, Mexico, the CEC Council considered the proposed strategic plan for 2010–

15 to guide the CEC’s work over the next five years. The proposed strategic plan 

provides objectives for results-focused collaboration between the NAFTA countries on 

three trilateral priorities: healthy communities and ecosystems, climate change and a lowcarbon economy, and greening the economy in North America. The CEC asked the Joint 

Public Advisory Committee to consult the North American public on the strategic plan 

and report back to the CEC on comments from the public.42

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. In 2010, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) 

and the North American Development Bank (NADB) reported working with more than 

150 communities throughout the U.S.-Mexico border region to address their 

environmental infrastructure needs. As of December 31, 2010, the BECC had certified 

 38 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 124. 39 The CEC Council consists of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Canadian 

Environment Minister, and Mexican Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources. 40 CEC, Secretariat, “Three Countries Working Together” (accessed March 25, 2011). 41 CEC, “Citizen Submission on Enforcement Matters: A Guide to Articles 14 and 15” (accessed March 24, 

2011). 42 CEC, “CEC Ministerial Statement: Seventeenth Regular Session,” August 17, 2010; USTR, 2011 Trade 

Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 149. 
4-11 

TABLE 4.5 Active files through 2010 under article 14 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 submitted a draft factual record to the Council, 

for a 45-day comment period on the accuracy of the draft 

on March 22, 2011. 

Environmental 

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. 

Species at Risk SEM-06-005 Oct. 10, 2006 Canada The submitter(s) asked the Secretariat in writing on January 

17, 2011, to withdraw the submission. The withdrawal 

was received after the response from the concerned 

government party. 

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. 

Los 

Remedios 

National 

Park II 

SEM-09-003 July 16, 2009 Mexico The Secretariat received a response from the concerned 

government party and began considering on December 21, 

2010, whether to recommend a factual record. 

Skeena 

River 

Fishery 

SEM-09-005 Oct. 15, 2009 Canada The Secretariat received a response from the concerned 

government party and began considering on July 30, 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 received a revised submission and began a 

preliminary analysis of it on May 7, 2010. 

Bicentennial 

Bridge 

SEM-10-004 Dec. 20, 2010 Mexico The Secretariat notified the submitter(s) on February 28, 2011, 

that under article 14(2), the submission did not merit 

requesting a response from the concerned government 

party, and that submitter(s) had 30 days to file new or 

supplemental information. 

Source: CEC, “Citizen Submission on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions.” 

 a Refers to the country against which an allegation was filed. 

175 environmental infrastructure projects. As of that same date, the NADB had 

contracted a cumulative total of approximately $1.2 billion in loans and grants to support 

149 certified projects estimated to cost a total of $3.2 billion to build. Of those funds, a 

total of $1.1 billion has already been disbursed.43

 43 NADB, “BECC and NADB Quarterly Status Report,” December 31, 2010, 3; NADB, “Summary of 

Project Implementation Activities,” December 31, 2010. 
4-12 

Dispute Settlement 

The dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA chapters 11 and 19 cover a variety of 

areas.44 The sections below describe developments during 2010 in NAFTA chapter 11 

investor-state disputes and chapter 19 binational reviews of final determinations of 

antidumping and countervailing cases. Appendix table A.20 presents an overview of 

developments in NAFTA chapter 19 dispute settlement cases to which the United States 

was a party in 2010. 

Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Developments 

Chapter 11 of NAFTA includes provisions designed to protect cross-border investors and 

facilitate 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.45 A key feature of the chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability 

in domestic courts of final awards made by arbitration tribunals.46

In 2010, there was one active chapter 11 case filed against the United States by Canadian 

investors. 47 In the same year, there were five active chapter 11 cases filed by U.S. 

investors against Canada 48 and three active chapter 11 cases filed by U.S. investors 

against Mexico.49

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.50

At the end of 2010, the NAFTA Secretariat listed 10 binational panels active under 

chapter 19 (table 4.6). All 3 binational panels formed in 2010 under chapter 19 

challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations on products from Mexico and all active cases 

challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations.51 

 44 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 24, 2011). 45 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). 46 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 24, 2011). 47 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed Against the United States”; NAFTA 

Secretariat, Canadian Section, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed Against the Government of the United 

States of America.” 48 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed Against Canada;” NAFTA Secretariat, 

Canadian Section, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada.” 49 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.” 50 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 24, 2011). 51 NAFTA Secretariat, “NAFTA—Chapter 19 Active Cases.” 
4-13 

TABLE 4.6 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of the end of 2010 

Countrya Case number National agencies' final determinationb Case title 

 

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-2007-1904-03 USITC Antidumping Duty Review Welded Pipe 

USA-MEX-2008-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils 

USA-MEX-2008-1904-04 USITC Injury Determination Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from 

China, Korea, and 

Mexico 

 

 USA-MEX-2009-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip 

 USA-MEX-2010-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils 

 USA-MEX-2010-1904-02 USITC Injury Determination Seamless Refined Copper 

Pipe and Tube 

 USA-MEX-2010-1904-03 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Seamless Refined Copper 

Pipe and Tube 

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Dispute Settlements Proceedings.” 

 a Canada filed the first 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. In the United States, dumping and subsidy determinations are made by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (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 

2010: the European Union (EU), Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Taiwan, Brazil, India, and Russia (ordered by value of two-way merchandise 

trade). The global economic recovery that continued in 2010 was reflected in U.S. 

bilateral trade trends with each of these trading partners. 

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. U.S. merchandise trade with the EU rose 10.8 percent 

in 2010 to $532.2 billion, which accounted for 17.6 percent of total U.S. trade. Because 

of the economic downturn, which hit the U.S. and EU economies particularly hard, total 

U.S.-EU trade has not yet recovered to the levels recorded in 2007 and 2008. After 

declining for several years, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU climbed $21.8 

billion to $97.6 billion in 2010 (figure 5.1). On the other hand, the United States 

registered a trade surplus in services with the EU of $49.1 billion in 2010, down $1.4 

billion from 2009 (figure 5.2); the EU accounted for 33.4 percent of U.S. trade in services 

in 2010.2

 

U.S. merchandise exports to the EU increased 7.4 percent to $217.3 billion in 2010. 

Leading U.S. exports included aircraft and parts, certain medicaments, petroleum 

products, nonmonetary gold, blood fractions (e.g., antiserum), coal, passenger motor 

FIGURE 5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2006–10a 

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

 1

 The 27 members of the EU in 2010 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, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 2

 The United Kingdom was the largest single-country U.S. trading partner in services in 2010. 
5-2 

vehicles, and medical instruments. Among the top exports, the most notable increases by 

value were in nucleic acids and their salts, precious metal scrap, soybeans, and coal. 

U.S. merchandise imports from the EU increased more strongly, rising 13.2 percent to 

$314.9 billion in 2010. Leading U.S. imports included certain medicaments, passenger 

motor vehicles, petroleum products, nucleic acids and their salts, aircraft and parts, and 

heterocyclic compounds. Among the top imports, the largest increases were recorded for 

passenger motor vehicles and petroleum products. U.S.-EU merchandise trade data are 

shown in appendix tables A.21 through A.23. 

One major focus of the U.S.-EU trade relationship in 2010 was the work of the 

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

facilitate bilateral trade and investment. The TEC took a number of concrete steps in 

2010, which are described below. The United States and EU also signed a second-stage 

air transport agreement on June 24, 2010, building on the first-stage Open Skies 

Agreement implemented in 2008, which lifted restrictions on air services between the 

United States and EU.3

 In addition, there were developments in several WTO dispute 

settlement cases involving the United States and the EU in 2010 (see chapter 3 and 

appendix table A.19). A panel report was issued in the long-running WTO dispute 

involving alleged EU subsidies for large civil aircraft; both the EU and the United States 

appealed the findings (DS316). A panel report was adopted in a WTO dispute 

concerning EU tariff treatment of certain information technology products (DS375). 

Also, on June 8, 2010, both sides formally signed an agreement designed to settle all 

WTO disputes related to the EU banana import regime.4

 Finally, there is an ongoing 

section 301 case on the EU meat hormone directive (see chapter 2). 

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. At the November 2010 U.S.-EU summit, the leaders agreed to 

task the TEC with “develop[ing] a transatlantic agenda to stimulate growth and create 

jobs in key emerging sectors and technologies.” Acknowledging that the two economies 

had “not yet fully tapped the potential of transatlantic commerce,” the leaders agreed that 

the most effective way to boost growth and generate jobs would be to “promote 

innovation, streamline regulation, and eliminate barriers to trade and investment,” an 

effort in which the TEC would play a leading role. In particular, summit leaders charged 

the TEC with finding ways “to improve transatlantic consultation before regulators and 

agencies develop regulation in new technologies and sectors, to share best practices, and 

to promote maximum compatibility of regulations and the free flow of ideas, products, 

and services” and to report on progress in these areas in 2011.5

The TEC, which met on December 17, 2010, continued to make progress on building 

cooperation when developing new regulations in order to avoid erecting unintended 

barriers to trade, a process that is also known as upstream regulatory cooperation. The 

TEC agreed to follow shared principles, such as transparency and public participation, 

when developing regulations; to provide advance notice of planned regulations; and to 

 3

 For more information on the first-stage open skies agreement, see USITC, The Year in Trade, 2007, 5-2 

to 5-3. 4

 The agreement was initialed in December 2009. For more information about the agreement, see USITC, 

The Year in Trade, 2009, 5-4 to 5-5. 5

 European Commission, “EU-U.S. Summit: Joint Statement,” November 20, 2010. 
5-3 

focus its work on the following areas: energy efficiency, e-health, nutritional labeling, 

electric drive vehicles and related infrastructure, and product safety, such as for toys. 

The two sides also agreed to set up an ongoing process to identify other sectors for 

upstream regulatory cooperation.6

U.S. and EU government officials signed several sectoral statements and agreements 

related to regulatory cooperation, including a Memorandum of Understanding on Ehealth in which they agreed to cooperate on the interoperability of electronic health 

record systems. 7

 Officials also signed a statement of intent to form a partnership to 

promote the exchange of technical information on chemicals in order to improve 

chemical safety. 8 In addition, the two sides issued a joint statement to strengthen 

technical cooperation when developing regulations that establish efficiency standards for 

energy-related products.9

The TEC also made progress in ensuring that their customs authorities cooperate in 

safeguarding against security threats. At the December 2010 meeting, TEC officials 

announced an understanding on the final steps needed to achieve mutual recognition of 

authorized traders. Implementation is scheduled by October 31, 2011. TEC officials also 

agreed to deepen cooperation in constructing policies to ensure supply chain security.10

The TEC also launched the first work plan under the Transatlantic Innovation Action 

Partnership, which was established to strengthen cooperation in innovation and promote 

the commercial use of emerging technologies and sectors. 11 The work plan initially 

focuses on two sectors—raw materials and bio-based products—and on exchanging best 

practices on innovation policy to encourage innovation and support commercialization. 

To promote a sustainable and secure international supply of raw materials, the plan calls 

for collaborative research and cooperation on trade policy, including strengthening the 

international framework on trade in raw materials in the OECD and other forums. In the 

area of bio-based products, the plan aims to promote the cooperative development and 

use of eco-friendly products to produce compatible public policies and standards. Areas 

for possible future collaboration include nanotechnologies, green procurement, and social 

innovation.12

Finally, the TEC launched a joint Web site to fight counterfeiting and piracy.13 The 

Transatlantic IPR Portal offers guidance and tools to U.S. and EU companies, particularly 

small and medium-sized enterprises, on how to protect their IPR in foreign markets.14

 6

 Transatlantic Economic Council, “Joint Statement,” December 17, 2010. 7

 USDOS, “Annex 2: TEC; Sector Specific Statements,” December 17, 2010; USDOS, “Memorandum of 

Understanding,” December 17, 2010. 8

 USEPA, “EPA and European Chemicals Agency Sign Agreement,” December 17, 2010. 9

 USDOS, “Joint Declaration of the Transatlantic Economic Council,” December 17, 2010. 10 Transatlantic Economic Council, “Joint Statement,” December 17, 2010. 11 Transatlantic Economic Council, “Joint Statement,” December 17, 2010. 12 USDOS, “Transatlantic Innovation Action Partnership Work Plan,” December 17, 2010. 13 The portal’s web address is http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/initiatives/ipr/index_en.htm. 14 European Commission, “Transatlantic Economic Council: EU and US Launch,” December 17, 2010. 
5-4 

Canada 

In 2010, Canada was the United States’ largest single-country trading partner, with twoway merchandise trade valued at $481.5 billion, accounting for 15.9 percent of total U.S. 

trade. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Canada worsened markedly from the 

previous year, increasing 31.6 percent, from $52.9 billion in 2009 to $69.6 billion in 2010 

(figure 5.3). By contrast, the U.S. trade surplus in private services with Canada expanded 

briskly, from $20.0 billion in 2009 to $24.2 billion in 2010, an increase of 21.2 percent 

(figure 5.4). Canada was the United States’ second largest single-country trading partner 

in services in 2010, after the United Kingdom. 

U.S. exports of goods to Canada increased 20.0 percent, from $171.7 billion in 2009 to 

$206.0 billion in 2010. Leading U.S. exports to Canada during 2010 were motor vehicles 

and parts; energy products, such as natural gas, oil, and oil products; aircraft and aircraft 

parts; metal products, such as gold scrap and aluminum plate; and medicaments. 

U.S. imports of goods from Canada, however, rose more than U.S. exports, increasing 

22.7 percent, from $224.6 billion in 2009 to $275.5 billion in 2010. Leading U.S. imports 

from Canada during 2010 were energy products, such as oil and oil products, natural and 

propane gas, and electricity; motor vehicles and vehicle parts; metals, such as gold, 

aluminum, and copper; wood and wood products; and medicaments. U.S.-Canada 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.24 through A.26. 

The United States and Canada form the world’s largest and most comprehensive trade 

relationship. Since 1989, overall trade between the United States and Canada has 

operated within the framework of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (1989) and the 

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1994), the latter signed between the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA has reduced trade barriers and liberalized 

trade rules in a large number of areas––including agriculture, services, energy, financial 

services, investment, and government procurement––and provides an institutional 

structure in which to settle a variety of disputes between the three partners. 15 Both 

FIGURE 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2006–10a 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

 15 USDOS, “Background Note: Canada,” September 1, 2010. 
5-5 

Canada and the United States are members of the WTO and are also members of a 

number of other organizations and forums, such as the OECD and APEC, as well as 

parties to various international agreements, such as ACTA. In addition, the United States 

and Canada have concluded various agreements to address specific issues, such as the 

1996 and 2006 agreements concerning softwood lumber and, most recently in 2010, a 

tentative agreement concerning access to certain government procurement contracts. 

Softwood Lumber 

In 1996, the United States and Canada signed the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber 

Agreement (SLA), which established a trigger-price import quota system designed to 

ensure a stable supply of Canadian lumber exports to the United States. The 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 is expected to continue until 2013, 

with the possibility of extension for a further two years.16

The SLA provides for binding arbitration to resolve disputes between the parties 

regarding interpretation and implementation of the agreement.17 Consultations, the first 

step in the SLA dispute settlement process, are designed to resolve differences short of 

arbitration.18 Failing a resolution of differences through formal consultations, arbitration 

is conducted under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and 

there is no appeal from the decision of the tribunal.19 Since the 2006 SLA entered into 

effect, the two countries have been involved in three arbitration cases, involving (1) 

export measures, (2) provincial subsidies, and (3) British Columbia timber pricing.20

In the first arbitration case involving export measures, in 2007 the United States 

requested formal consultations, and subsequent arbitration, under the SLA to resolve 

concerns about certain adjustments Canada had made to export levels of softwood lumber 

destined for the U.S. market. Of particular concern was Canada’s application of the 

SLA’s surge mechanism and quota volumes. 21 In 2008, the arbitration tribunal 

determined that Canada failed to properly calculate its quotas under the terms of the SLA 

and, in 2009, directed Canada to adjust its quotas by collecting additional export 

charges.22 (A section 301 investigation related to this dispute was discussed in chapter 2.) 

Following Canada’s failure to impose the measures by the date determined by the 

tribunal, the United States imposed a 10 percent ad valorem customs duty on imports of 

softwood lumber from four Canadian provinces, effective April 15, 2009.23 The United 

States suspended these duties on September 1, 2010, once Canada began charging a 10 

percent ad valorem export charge on softwood lumber destined for the United States in 

accordance with the tribunal’s 2009 decision.24

 16 USTR, “United States Wins Softwood Lumber Arbitration,” January 21, 2011. 17 USTR, “Tribunal Finds Canada Failed to Cure Breach,” November 28, 2009. 18 USTR, “United States Requests Consultations with Canada,” October 8, 2010. 19 USTR, “Tribunal Finds Canada Failed to Cure Breach,” November 28, 2009. 20 For further background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2007, July 2008, 5-5; USITC, The Year in Trade 

2008, July 2009, 5-7; USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, July 2010, 5-8 to 5-10. 21 USTR, “Statement from USTR Spokesman Sean Spicer,” January 16, 2008. 22 USTR, “U.S. Responds to Canadian Failure to Cure Breach,” April 3, 2009. 23 USTR, “United States Imposes Tariffs on Softwood Lumber, “April 7, 2009; USTR, “Weekly Trade 

Spotlight: Montana and Softwood Lumber,” August 24, 2009. 24 Government of Canada, “Softwood Lumber Exports to the United States,” August 23, 2010. 
5-6 

The second arbitration case concerned assistance programs maintained by the Canadian 

provinces of Quebec and Ontario.25 The United States requested the arbitration in 2008 

after consultations in 2007 failed to resolve the matter. The arbitration considered 

whether these provincial subsidy programs circumvented the terms of the agreement.26

On January 21, 2011, the LCIA tribunal issued its decision in this second arbitration, 

finding that a number of provincial assistance programs put in place by Quebec and 

Ontario circumvented the terms of the SLA. The tribunal further determined as an 

appropriate adjustment that Canada must impose additional charges on exports of 

softwood lumber to the United States originating in Quebec and Ontario for the duration 

of the SLA.27

The third arbitration case concerned underpricing of timber harvested from public lands 

in the interior region of British Columbia.28 The United States held formal consultations 

with Canada in October 2010 and requested arbitration before the LCIA in January 

2011.29

Government Procurement 

In late 2009, the United States and Canada held consultations concerning market access 

to government procurement contracts below the federal level. These consultations were 

initiated in response to Canadian concerns regarding market access for Canadian 

suppliers under the “Buy American” provisions enacted into U.S. law under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, signed February 17, 2009. 

Although both countries are parties to the Agreement on Government Procurement 

(GPA) under the WTO, which provides reciprocal market access to procurement 

contracts at the central government level, neither provides access to the other under the 

GPA at the subfederal level.30

On February 12, 2010, the United States and Canada reached a tentative agreement on 

government procurement, subject to domestic approval processes. The agreement 

contains two major elements: (1) it provides reciprocal and permanent market access 

commitments under the GPA for provincial, territorial, and state procurement; and (2) it 

provides reciprocal and temporary market access for a range of construction and public 

works projects.31

In the latter area, Canada agreed to provide U.S. suppliers with access to a range of 

construction contracts across Canada’s provinces, territories, and a number of 

municipalities—not otherwise covered under the GPA—through September 2011. In 

exchange, the United States agreed to provide Canadian suppliers with access to 

procurement contracts in 37 states—already covered under the GPA—as well as to a 

limited number of programs under the ARRA funding of local public works projects.32

Both countries agreed to continue discussions concerning mutual procurement 

opportunities.33

 25 USTR, “United States Requests Consultations with Canada,” October 8, 2010. 26 USTR, “Tribunal Orders Canada to Cure Breach,” February 9, 2009. 27 USTR, “United States Wins Softwood Lumber Arbitration,” January 21, 2011. 28 USTR, “United States Requests Arbitration with Canada,” January 18, 2011. 29 LCIA, “In the LCIA, No. 111790, The United States of America, Claimant,” January 18, 2011. 30 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 136–37. 31 USTR, “U.S.-Canada Joint Statement on Government Procurement,” February 5, 2010. 32 USTR, “U.S.-Canada joint Statement on Government Procurement,” February 5, 2010. 33 USTR, “Kirk Comments on US-Canada Procurement Agreement,” February 5, 2010. On February 9, 

2011, U.S. and Canadian negotiators met in Washington DC to hold initial talks on whether to open 
5-7 

Intellectual Property 

Canada has been listed on the USTR Special 301 Watch List for over a decade, according 

to the International Intellectual Property Alliance, an industry association.34 Canada was 

added to the USTR Priority Watch List for the first time in 2009 over U.S. concerns 

about adequate and effective protection and enforcement of IPR, both within Canada and 

at the border.35 Although Canada signed the World Intellectual Property Organization 

(WIPO) Internet treaties36 in 1997, it has yet to accede to or implement them, impeding 

copyright reform in Canada and prolonging weak border enforcement against the 

transshipment of infringing products through Canada.37

On June 2, 2010, the government of Canada introduced into Parliament the Copyright 

Modernization Act, bill C-32, designed to implement the WIPO Internet treaties and 

reform Canada’s copyright law after two previous failed attempts at legislative reform.38

The United States continues to urge Canada to enact legislation to implement these 

treaties and strengthen its copyright laws, neither of which had been accomplished by the 

end of 2010. The United States has also urged Canada to enact legislation that would 

authorize customs officers to seize any products suspected of being pirated or counterfeit 

at the border without the need for a court order. In addition, the U.S. pharmaceutical 

industry has expressed concern over Canada’s 2010 pharmaceutical pricing guidelines, 

singling out in particular the regulatory burden they place on pharmaceutical 

manufacturers.39

Canada has been an active participant in the ACTA negotiations, concluded in November 

2010.40 The ACTA establishes an international framework that will help parties to the 

agreement to effectively combat the infringement of IPR, in particular the proliferation of 

counterfeiting and piracy.41

 negotiations on a new bilateral procurement agreement that would expand upon the original February 2010 

agreement. Inside Washington Publishers, “U.S., Canada Enter Preliminary Stage,” February 17, 2011. 34 IIPA, “Appendix D: Historical Summary,” February 15, 2011, 9. 35 USTR, 2009 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2009, 17. 36 The so-called WIPO Internet treaties comprise the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances 

and Phonograms Treaty. 37 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 54; USDOS, 

U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, “Canadian Copyright Reform Legislation Based on Bill C61 Introduced,” June 3, 

2010, par. 2. 38 Government of Canada, “Government of Canada Introduces Proposals to Modernize the Copyright Act,” 

June 2, 2010; USDOS, U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, “Canadian Copyright Reform Legislation,” June 3, 2010, par. 

1–2. 39 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 54. According to 

the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the new pricing guidelines issued by 

Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which has the authority to regulate the prices of medicines 

sold in Canada, “increase the complexity of reporting.” PhRMA, “Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Special 301 Submission 2010,” 74–75. 40 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 54. 41 ACTA is discussed in chapter 3 of this report. 
5-8 

China 

In 2010, China remained the United States’ second-largest single-country trading partner 

based on two-way trade, accounting for 14.9 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. 

two-way merchandise trade with China amounted to $449.8 billion, an increase of 24.7 

percent over 2009. The United States’ bilateral deficit with China, which rose by $47.9 

billion to $278.3 billion in 2010, remained higher than the U.S. deficit with any other 

single-country trading partner. The increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China 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 39.9 percent to $10.4 billion in 

2010 (figure 5.6). 

China overtook Japan to become the third-largest destination for U.S. exports in 2007, 

and remained in that position, behind Canada and Mexico, through 2010. U.S. 

merchandise exports to China amounted to $85.7 billion in 2010, a 31.7 percent increase 

over 2009. The increase in the value of U.S. exports to China in 2010 was led by exports 

of soybeans, automobiles, cotton, and metal waste and scrap. Leading U.S. exports to 

China included soybeans, metal waste and scrap, aircraft, and computer chips. 

In 2010, China remained the largest single-country source of U.S. imports. U.S. imports 

from China amounted to $364.0 billion, an increase of 23.2 percent over 2009. This 

increase was led by imports across a wide range of consumer product categories, 

including electronic devices, toys, and apparel products, following a drop in U.S. 

consumer demand for similar products in 2009. Leading U.S. imports from China in 2010 

were computers and computer parts, wireless telephones, toys, and video games. U.S.-

China merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.27 through A.29. 

In 2010, U.S.-China bilateral relations focused on IPR enforcement in China, China’s 

indigenous innovation policies, China’s restrictions on imports of U.S. beef and pork, and 

the promotion of more consumption-led growth in China. These issues were among the 

principal themes of the May 2010 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), 

the December 2010 meeting of the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), 

and other bilateral trade policy negotiations. 

FIGURE 5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2006–10a 

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 
5-9 

There were also developments in a number of WTO dispute settlement cases between the 

United States and China in 2010. The United States requested consultations with China in 

three cases regarding (1) measures affecting electronic payment services (DS413), (2) 

countervailing and antidumping duties on grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel from 

the United States (DS414), and (3) measures concerning wind power equipment (DS419). 

WTO panel reports were circulated and/or adopted in three cases brought by China: (1) 

definitive antidumping and countervailing duties on certain products from China 

(DS379), (2) measures affecting imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from 

China (DS399), and (3) U.S. measures affecting imports of poultry from China (DS392). 

China also informed the WTO of its implementation or intent to implement the 

recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in two cases 

brought by the United States: (1) measures affecting IPR protection and enforcement 

(DS362), and (2) trading rights and distribution services for certain publications and 

audiovisual entertainment products (DS363). Developments in these cases during 2010 

are described in more detail in chapter 3 and appendix table A.19. 

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement 

IPR protection and enforcement in China continued to be a high-priority issue for the 

United States in 2010.42 According to USTR, persistent inadequacies in the protection 

and enforcement of IPR in China represent barriers to U.S. exports and investment, 

particularly as they relate to retail and wholesale counterfeiting, book and journal piracy, 

end-user piracy of business software, and copyright piracy over the Internet. 43

Nevertheless, USTR noted signs of improvement in China’s IPR system. These include a 

rise in the number of civil IPR cases in courts and one of the largest software piracy 

prosecutions in China’s history.44 According to USTR, other steps are still needed for 

effective IPR enforcement, including better coordination among different Chinese 

government agencies, more training and resources, and measures to address local 

protectionism and corruption. 45 Because of these continued issues, in 2010 China 

remained on USTR’s Special 301 Priority Watch List of countries with significant IPR 

problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation. 

USTR also noted the need for an increase in criminal prosecution and other enforcement 

actions against widespread trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on the Internet, 

given China’s emergence as a leading user of the Internet, broadband, and mobile 

devices. According to the 2010 Special 301 Report, a recent enforcement campaign 

demonstrated that when the Chinese government makes use of its enforcement resources, 

it can produce results.46

In the 2010 Special 301 report, USTR also noted concern about China’s development of 

“indigenous innovation” policies that aim to increase the level of scientific and 

technological innovation originating within China. USTR stated that such polices may 

unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders.47 As a result of this concern, at the conclusion 

 42 On April 19, 2010, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance requested the USITC conduct two studies on 

China’s IPR. The results were published in USITC, China: Intellectual Property Infringement, November 

2010; USITC, China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement, May 2011. 43 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 71. 44 USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 19. 45 USTR, 2010 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 2010, 5, 12, 83–86. 46 USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 20. 47 USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 19. 
5-10 

of the December 2010 U.S.-China JCCT meeting, China agreed to delink government 

procurement preferences from China’s broader indigenous innovation policies.48

Beef 

China imposed a ban on imports of U.S. cattle, beef, and processed beef products in 2003 

due to a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as “mad cow 

disease,” discovered in the United States. According to USTR, despite repeated efforts 

by the United States to provide extensive information on all aspects of U.S. BSE-related 

surveillance and safety measures currently in place, China continued to ban imports of 

U.S. beef in 2010.49 Since the original ban in 2003, Chinese and U.S. negotiators have 

met several times to resolve the dispute, but the United States declined to accept China’s 

market reopening offers because they failed to meet World Organization for Animal 

Health (OIE) standards.50 However, at the December 2010 JCCT meeting, China agreed 

to resume talks with the United States on beef market access. Experts from USTR, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

met during the first two weeks in January 2011 with their counterparts in Beijing. These 

meetings assisted both sides in understanding each other’s positions, and resulted in an 

agreement to continue discussions towards reopening China’s market to imports of U.S. 

beef with scientifically based guidelines that conform to OIE standards.51

Pork 

In April 2009, China banned imports of U.S. pork, pork products, and live swine due to 

concerns over the H1N1 influenza A virus (commonly known as swine flu) in the United 

States.52 However, China committed to lift this ban at the October 2009 JCCT meeting,53

and on March 19, 2010, USTR and USDA announced that the United States and China 

had reached an agreement reopening China’s market to U.S. pork and pork products. In 

May 2010, China finalized the agreement on specific U.S. export certificate language 

regarding the H1N1 influenza A virus, which allowed imports of U.S. pork and pork 

products to resume.54 China continued to restrict imports of live swine from the United 

States due to lingering concerns over the transmission of the virus. Before the H1N1 

scare, the United States had captured about 65 percent of the Chinese live swine import 

market, a number that was steadily rising each year. According to USTR, the removal of 

the live swine ban will present U.S. exporters with renewed opportunities in the Chinese 

live swine market.55

 48 USTR, 21st U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, December 15, 2010. 49 USTR, 2010 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 2010, 77–78. 50 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 35–36. 51 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 35–36. 52 The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and OIE 

have reported that H1N1 is not transmitted through properly prepared food products. See USTR, “U.S. and 

China Agree on Reopening,” March 18, 2010. 53 USTR, 2010 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 2010, 77. 54 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 34; USTR, “U.S. and China 

Agree on Reopening,” March 18, 2010. 55 In March 2011, China agreed to lift this ban after the USDA agreed to conduct H1N1 testing and 

certification on all live swine exported from the United States. See USTR, “Fact Sheet: Keeping Markets 

Open,” March 30, 2011. 
5-11 

Global Trade Imbalances and China’s Exchange-Rate Regime 

In 2010, two important trade phenomena—the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China 

of $278.3 billion, and China’s policies limiting the flexibility of its currency, the yuan—

remained a concern for U.S. policymakers. Between July 21, 2005, when China officially 

ended its fixed exchange-rate peg with the U.S. dollar, and yearend 2010, the yuan 

appreciated by approximately 17.9 percent in U.S. dollar terms. 56 China temporarily 

allowed the yuan to be managed against a broader set of currencies between mid-2005 

and mid-2008 (including the U.S. dollar, euro, Japanese yen, and Korean won), but then 

went back to a managed exchange rate against the U.S. dollar until mid-2010. During the 

May 2010 S&ED, officials of the U.S. Treasury Department urged their Chinese 

counterparts to continue to promote more consumption-led economic growth, move to a 

more market-determined exchange rate, and continue to promote economic growth in 

China by encouraging domestic consumption. Such an approach, according to the U.S. 

officials, would help secure the global recovery and achieve more balanced global 

growth.57 

Mexico 

In 2010, Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country trading partner, 

following Canada and China. Merchandise trade between the two countries increased 

27.8 percent to $360.4 billion in 2010, accounting for 11.9 percent of U.S. trade with the 

world. The United States registered its second-largest single-country trade deficit with 

Mexico at $97.2 billion; this deficit was outweighed only by that with China and was 

nearly the same as the U.S. deficit with the EU. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with 

Mexico increased by $26.6 billion to $97.2 billion in 2010 (figure 5.7); while the value of 

U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico rose strongly in 2010, the value of the corresponding 

U.S. imports from Mexico rose even more.58 However, the U.S. trade surplus in services 

with Mexico increased by 11.6 percent to $9.3 billion in 2010 (figure 5.8): U.S. services 

exports to Mexico were $23.0 billion and U.S. services imports from Mexico were $13.7 

billion. 

FIGURE 5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2006–10a 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

 56 IMF, International Financial Statistics database (accessed March 29, 2011). 57 U.S. Department of Treasury, “Second Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue,” 

May 25, 2010. 58 The U.S. economy, as well as the changes in the value of the dollar against the currencies of major U.S. 

trading partners in 2010, are discussed in chapter 1. 
5-12 

U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled $131.6 billion in 2010, an increase of 24.5 

percent from 2009. In 2010, as in the previous year, machinery and transportation 

equipment continued to be the largest product group in bilateral trade, with automotive 

trade being an important component in both exports and imports. Other leading U.S. 

exports to Mexico included petroleum products, corn, soybeans, plastic articles, aircraft 

and aircraft parts, and parts for electrical apparatus. 

In 2010, U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico increased by 29.8 percent to $228.8 

billion. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included petroleum and petroleum products, 

television apparatus, motor vehicles, computers, cell phones, nonmonetary gold, 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 and transport equipment—

together responsible for the majority of the overall increase in 2010. U.S.-Mexico 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.30 through A.32. 

U.S.-Mexican trade relations are governed in large part by NAFTA, which provides dutyfree status for a sizable portion of goods traded between the two countries that originate 

in the United States and Mexico.59 A number of trade disputes between the United States 

and Mexico were the subject of WTO and NAFTA dispute settlement proceedings in 

2010. The procedural developments in each of these cases are listed in appendix tables 

A.19 and A.20, respectively. Trucking has been a particular area of disagreement; recent 

developments in cross-border trucking provisions under NAFTA 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 provisions’ 

implementation, however, has been delayed because of safety concerns.60 On September 

7, 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) initiated a one-year CrossBorder Trucking Demonstration Project aimed at demonstrating the ability of Mexicobased motor carriers to operate safely in the United States beyond the commercial zones 

along the U.S.-Mexico border.61 After extending it for two years until 2010, the USDOT 

terminated the project in January 2009, when Congress banned the use of USDOT funds 

to operate or maintain the program.62 In retaliation, the government of Mexico stated that 

the termination measure was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under NAFTA, and 

suspended the preferential tariffs that the NAFTA affords to certain goods from the 

United States. These new tariffs on U.S. goods exports to Mexico became effective on 

March 19, 2009.63 

On August 16, 2010, the government of Mexico announced that it would add several 

items to the list of products with suspended preferential tariffs under NAFTA, while 

 59 For more information on NAFTA, see chapter 4. 

60 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; and in 2009 in USITC, Year in Trade 2009, 2010, 5-

16. 61 Details of the program are reported in USITC, Year in Trade 2007, 2008, 5-11; USITC, The Year in 

Trade 2009, 2010, 5-16 . 62 74 Fed. Reg. 11628 (March 18, 2009); Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8. 

63 Secretaría de Gobernación, Diario Oficial de la Federación (Mexico’s Federal Register), March 18, 

2009. In 2009, the value of U.S. exports to Mexico under the new tariffs amounted to less than 2 percent of 

total U.S. exports to Mexico. Further information on the new tariffs is reported in USITC, Year in Trade 

2009, 2010, 5-16. 
5-13 

reducing or eliminating duties on several other products on the list.64 The revised list of 

U.S. goods subject to higher tariffs in the cross-border trucking dispute, published on 

August 18 in Mexico’s official gazette, came into effect on August 19, 2010. The new list 

added 26 new tariff lines and removed 16 tariff lines, for a total of 99 tariff lines, 

compared with 89 on the previous list. 65 The value of U.S. exports to Mexico on the new 

list is about $2.5 billion, compared to $2.4 billion for those on the previous list. In the 

revised list, duties are lower; they range from 5 percent to 25 percent ad valorem, with a 

simple average of 16 percent.66 The goods affected include 45 finished products and 54 

agricultural products.67 Products added to the list include pork products, several types of 

cheeses, frozen sweet corn, pistachios, oranges, grapefruits, and apples. Products that 

were removed from the list included shelled peanuts, dental floss, copy paper, 

commercial catalogs, locks, and telephone sets. 

The government of Mexico indicated that it is willing to resolve the bilateral dispute.68

On January 6, 2011, the U.S. Department of Transportation presented Congress and the 

Mexican government an “initial concept document for a long haul cross-border Mexican 

trucking program that prioritizes safety, while satisfying the United States’ international 

obligations.”69

Japan 

In 2010, Japan was the fourth-largest single-country U.S. trading partner, accounting for 

5.8 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade—the same as in 2009. U.S. trade with Japan 

was $175.7 billion in 2010, an increase of 22.8 percent. The United States recorded a 

merchandise trade deficit with Japan of $64.2 billion, up $15.3 billion from 2009 (figure 

5.9). This increase in the bilateral trade deficit was primarily attributable to an $18.6 

billion increase in U.S. imports of machinery and transport equipment (mostly motor 

vehicles and parts). Japan was both the third-largest market for U.S. exports of services 

and the third-largest source of services imports in 2010. U.S. services exports to Japan 

rose 13.0 percent to $46.2 billion, while imports of services from Japan rose 16.2 percent 

to $24.1 billion, resulting in a $1.9 billion increase in the U.S. services surplus to $22.0 

billion in 2010 (figure 5.10). 

At the same time, U.S. merchandise exports to Japan grew 18.4 percent, from $47.1 

billion in 2009 to $55.7 billion in 2010. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were aircraft and 

parts, corn, certain medicaments, soybeans, and wheat. While most products among the 

top 25 U.S. exports to Japan rose in value, the largest increases were in acyclic ethers, 

certain medicaments, and coal. 

 64 USTR, “Statement from Ambassador Ron Kirk,” August 16, 2010. 65 Secretaría de Gobernación, Diario Oficial de la Federación (Mexico’s Federal Register), August 18, 

2010. 66 Ibid.; details on the duties and tariff lines for the 2009 list are reported in USITC, Year in Trade 2009, 

2010, 5-16. 67 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 247. 68 CRS, “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications,” February 24, 2011. 69 USDOT, “U.S. Cross-Border Trucking Effort Emphasizes Safety and Efficiency,” January 6, 2011. The 

“concept document” outlines a plan for phasing in a full opening of the U.S. border to Mexican long-haul 

trucks. A formal proposal, which the public will have the opportunity to comment on, is expected to be 

announced in the coming months after the specifics of the program are developed. 
5-14 

FIGURE 5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2006–10a 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

U.S. merchandise imports from Japan grew 24.9 percent to $119.9 billion in 2010. 

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

copying machines, cameras, and parts of airplanes or helicopters. One category—

passenger vehicles and parts—accounted for more than one-third of the increase in 

merchandise imports, although the value of these exports did not return to 2008 levels. 

U.S.-Japan merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.33 through A.35. 

The United States-Japan Economic Partnership for Growth has served as the primary 

forum for trade and economic dialogue between the two countries since its establishment 

in 2001. In 2010, economic cooperation became a priority in the bilateral relationship, as 

both countries struggled to recover from the global recession.70 The United States and 

Japan also continued to discuss regulatory reform and key trade issues, including beef 

and automobiles. These topics are discussed in greater detail below. In addition, the two 

countries engaged in discussions on strengthening APEC and on Japan’s interest in the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).71

Economic Cooperation Initiatives 

Numerous economic cooperation initiatives between Japan and the United States were 

advanced or commenced during 2010, including an open skies agreement and the U.S.-

Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the Internet Economy. The open skies agreement, 

which was concluded on October 25, 2010, encourages international travel and trade by 

expanding international passenger and cargo flights between Japan and the United 

States.72 This agreement has lessened government intervention in the commercial aviation 

market in Japan and will also ensure more opportunities for U.S. airlines at Narita and 

Haneda airports.73 This increased access to the Japanese aviation market will give U.S. 

airlines more operational flexibility.74

The U.S.-Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the Internet Economy was launched on 

November 1, 2010. Due to the expansion of economic activities using the Internet, both 

countries have become leaders in the information and communications technology sector. 

 70 USTR, “Japan.” (accessed March 30, 2011). 71 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara,” November 13, 

2010. 72 USDOS, “Open Skies Agreement,” June 28, 2010. 73 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 212. 74 USDOS, “Open Skies Agreement,” June 28, 2010. 
5-15 

This cooperation dialogue established partnerships to deal with related policy issues, such 

as increased openness of the Internet, the freedom to connect and communicate, and the 

enhancement of Internet security.75

A number of other initiatives were launched simultaneously on November 13, 2010, all 

of which have the potential to increase trade in goods and services between the United 

States and Japan: 

 The U.S.-Japan Dialogue to Promote Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Job 

Creation aims to strengthen the connection between innovation and 

entrepreneurship in order to promote economic growth.76

 The Energy-Smart Communities Initiative (ESCI) is built on the Clean Energy 

Action Plan, another U.S.-Japan initiative agreed upon in 2009. ESCI seeks to 

expand clean energy and employment as well as the sustainable development of 

the Asia-Pacific region by supporting energy-efficient structures, transport, and 

electric power grids.77

 The U.S.-Japan Clean Energy Policy Dialogue also builds on the Clean Energy 

Action Plan and will serve as a forum for experts to discuss the development of 

policies regarding clean energy technology.78

 The U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative will serve as a forum for 

bilateral negotiations regarding trade and economic issues. 79 Discussions will 

address methods to further develop economic cooperation and collaboration on 

global and regional challenges facing Japan and the United States.80

Regulatory Reforms 

During 2010, bilateral dialogue on the deregulation of Japan’s economy continued under 

the Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative, based on recommendations 

originally exchanged in October 2008. Historically, this work has focused on a variety of 

industry-specific issues as well as issues that affect the overall economic environment. 

Japan agreed to continue to ensure timely translations of Japanese laws into English. 

Japan had translated 260 laws into English as of April 2009, and planned to translate a 

total of 440 through its Translation Development Program by the end of fiscal year 

2010.81 The Japanese government also improved transparency by increasing the number 

of public comment periods that are longer than 30 days, which better enables the public 

to express any views and concerns it may have on new laws. Additionally, the dialogue 

made progress on several sector-specific reforms in communications, information 

technology, medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and financial services. 

 75 USDOS, “First Director-General Level U.S.-Japan Dialogue,” November 1, 2010. 76 USDOS, “U.S.-Japan Dialogue to Promote Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Job Creation,” February 

25, 2011. 77 The White House, “Fact Sheet on U.S.-Japan Initiatives,” November 13, 2010. 78 The White House, “Fact Sheet on U.S.-Japan Initiatives,” November 13, 2010. 79 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 134. 80 USTR, “U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative,” February 2011. 81 The Japanese fiscal year 2010 covers the period April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011. 
5-16 

In 2009, there was a setback to the Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative 

when the newly elected Japanese government passed a bill to halt the privatization 

process for the Japan Post Bank and Japan Post Insurance, both part of the publicly 

owned Japan Post Holdings Co. (Japan Post).82 In May 2010, the United States again 

expressed concern over Japan’s “preferential treatment” of Japan Post and urged further 

progress on the bill. Examples of the reasons for U.S. concern include proposals in Japan 

that allow fewer auditing and reporting requirements for Japan Post, which would add to 

its competitive advantage.83 

Beef 

In 2009, U.S. government officials met with their Japanese counterparts to again request 

greater access to Japan’s beef market and to encourage Japan to base food regulations on 

commonly agreed scientific norms. 84 In 2010, however, Japan continued to restrict 

imports of U.S. beef by requiring all products to be derived from animals 20 months old 

or younger because of concerns about BSE.85 

Japan’s restrictions on imports of U.S. beef have damaged U.S. beef exports. Before it 

banned imports of U.S. beef in December 2003, Japan was the largest export market for 

U.S. beef, taking almost 60 percent of U.S. total beef exports during the 1990s. In 2010, 

Japan accounted for 15.9 percent of total U.S. beef exports, which was the highest 

percent since the ban went into effect. Despite a 36.3 percent increase in U.S. exports, 

Japan was still only the third-largest export market for U.S. beef in 2010.86

In April 2010, the United States placed temporary restrictions on beef from Japan due to 

foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). The decision was made based on warnings from Japan of 

a FMD outbreak in cattle.87

Automobiles 

Difficulty accessing Japan’s automobile market has been an ongoing U.S. concern. As 

one example, new Japanese legislation supporting an environmentally friendly vehicle 

purchase and scrap incentive program (Japan’s version of the U.S. “Cash for Clunkers” 

program) went into effect in June 2009.88 The program provided subsidies to encourage 

purchases of newer, more fuel-efficient automobiles. Although it was scheduled to expire 

on March 31, 2010, the program was extended for six additional months and expired on 

September 30, 2010.89 The United States raised concerns about the program because U.S. 

automobiles that were imported using Japan’s Preferential Handling Procedure (PHP) 

certification process were not eligible for the purchase program.90 On January 19, 2010, 

Japan announced it would open the program to qualifying automobiles imported using the 

PHP process. However, concerns about the overall lack of access to the Japanese 

 82 Tudor, “Japan Shifts Course in Halting Postal Sale,” December 5, 2009. 

83 USTR, “United States, European Union Raise Shared Concerns on Japan Post,” May 2010. 84 USTR, “Ambassador Kirk Meets Japanese Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu,” October 8, 2009; USDA, 

“Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Meets Japanese Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu,” October 9, 2009. 85 USDA,“Japan: Issues and Analysis,” June 23, 2010. 86 GTIS, Global Trade Atlas database (accessed March 22, 2011). 87 USDA, APHIS, “USDA Places Import Restrictions on Beef from Japan Due to Finding of Foot-andMouth Disease,” May 28, 2010. 88 Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, “Japanese Government Incentives for the Purchase of 

Environmentally Friendly Vehicles,” September 24, 2009. 89 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 210. 90 USTR, “Kirk Comments on Changes,” January 19, 2010. 
5-17 

automobile market continue; as a result, the U.S. government is encouraging Japan to 

consider international harmonization efforts as it establishes new regulations and 

standards for its automobile industry.91

Republic of Korea 

Korea was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country two-way trading partner in 

2010. Two-way merchandise trade was valued at $84.8 billion in 2010, accounting for 

2.8 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The United States recorded an $11.1 billion 

trade deficit with Korea in 2010—the smallest in the last decade (figure 5.11). At the 

same time, the U.S. trade surplus in services with Korea increased $1.4 billion to $7.6 

billion in 2010 (figure 5.12). 

U.S. exports to Korea were valued at $36.8 billion in 2010, an increase of 36.1 percent 

over 2009. Leading U.S. exports to Korea during the year included machinery for 

producing semiconductors and computer chips, aircraft, corn, and transistors. Most of the 

2009 leading exports showed strong increases in value, although some increases were 

well below the average, such as the increase for parts of machinery for producing 

semiconductors, flat screens, and computers, and exports of some leading products, such 

as transistors, actually dropped. 

U.S. imports from Korea totaled $47.9 billion in 2010, an increase of 23.6 percent from 

2009. Leading U.S. imports from Korea included cell phones, automobiles, computer 

parts and accessories (mainly memory modules), and computer chips. There were 

increases in the value of all of the major leading imports except cell phones. U.S.-Korea 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.36 through A.38. 

U.S.-Korean trade relations in 2010 were dominated by the status of the United StatesKorea FTA (KORUS FTA). The KORUS FTA was signed in June 2007 and parts of it 

were renegotiated in 2010, leading to possible approval and implementation 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. 

FIGURE 5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2006–10a 

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

 91 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 210. 
5-18 

U.S.-Korea FTA 

On December 3, 2010, the United States and the Republic of Korea reached an agreement 

that resolved issues related to the KORUS FTA, which was signed on June 30, 2007. The 

new agreement was focused on motor vehicles and modified the obligations of the parties 

under the KORUS FTA. 

Major provisions of the new agreement include the following: (1) a slower phaseout of 

tariffs on U.S. and Korean passenger cars, U.S. trucks, and Korean frozen pork; (2) a near 

quadrupling of the number of cars per U.S. automaker that will be considered safetycompliant 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.92

In June 2010, President Obama announced his intent to finalize the KORUS FTA by the 

time he visited Korea for the G-20 summit in November.93 USTR Kirk subsequently 

indicated that autos and beef were the main areas of concern in negotiations preceding the 

G-20 meeting.94 Negotiations were not concluded in time for the November summit, but 

enough progress was made to reach agreement in December. The beef issue was not 

resolved by the December 2010 agreement (see below).95

The White House is expected to send implementing legislation to Congress in 2011 and 

has indicated it would like congressional approval by July 1, 2011. The U.S.-Korea FTA 

would, if approved by Congress and implemented, be the second-largest FTA for the 

United States after NAFTA.96

Beef

Before 2008, Korea intermittently suspended imports of beef from the United States 

because of concerns about BSE.97 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.98 It 

permits all U.S. beef (bone-in and boneless) and beef products from cattle of all ages to 

be imported into Korea, with appropriate specified risk materials, as defined by the OIE, 

removed.99

 92 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; and 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 

following entry into force and for trucks during the 20-year period following entry into force. 93 White House, “Remarks by President Obama,” June 26, 2010. 94 USTR, “Kirk Comments on U.S.-Korea FTA,” June 26, 2010. 95 CRS, “KORUS FTA,” March 1, 2011, 1, 48–49. 

96 CRS, “KORUS FTA,” March 1, 2011, 1. 

97 For details, see USITC, Year in Trade 2008, 2009, 5-21 to 5-22. 98 OIE, Resolution No. XXIV. 

99 USTR, 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report, March 2009, 151. 
5-19 

In response to significant public opposition to resuming imports of U.S. beef in Korea,100

Korean beef importers and U.S. exporters reached a commercial understanding—separate 

from the April 18 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. At the request of U.S. exporters, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture set up a voluntary Quality System Assessment Program that 

verifies that beef from participating plants is from cattle less than 30 months of age.101

U.S. beef exports resumed as of June 26, 2008, after Korea published its “Import Health 

Requirements for U.S. Beef and Products” in its official gazette,102 and Korea quickly 

returned to being one of the leading destinations for U.S. beef exports. Korea was the 

fourth leading destination for U.S. beef exports in 2008–10, with a substantial increase in 

exports in 2010. Still, U.S. beef exports to Korea remained less than before the 2003 ban. 

While USTR Kirk had indicated that beef would be a subject of the renewed FTA 

negotiations, the Korean position was that beef “did not fall under” the FTA concluded in 

2007.103 As noted above, the December 2010 agreement did not include any provisions 

related to Korean imports of U.S. beef, and the commercial understanding remains in 

effect. President Obama has stated that “We’re going to continue to work with our 

Korean partners to fully implement this agreement [the KORUS FTA] and build on our 

progress in other areas, such as ensuring full access for U.S. beef to the Korean 

market.”104

Taiwan 

In 2010, the United States recorded $59.5 billion in two-way merchandise trade with 

Taiwan, a strong increase of 32.8 percent over 2009 trade. In a return to its 2007 position 

before the global recession, Taiwan became the United States’ ninth-largest singlecountry trading partner and accounted for approximately 2.0 percent of U.S. trade with 

the world. Increases in both U.S. imports from Taiwan and U.S. exports to Taiwan 

caused little change in the United States’ bilateral deficit with Taiwan, which rose from 

$11.4 billion in 2009 to $11.7 billion in 2010 (figure 5.13). The U.S. trade surplus in 

services with Taiwan climbed to $3.3 billion in 2010, representing a 145.7 percent 

increase over the 2009 surplus of $1.3 billion (figure 5.14). 

U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan were $23.9 billion in 2010, up 43.0 percent over 

2009 and just $1 billion less than the pre-recession peak in 2007. As a result of this 

increase, Taiwan became the 12th largest destination for U.S. exports in 2010, up from 

14th in 2009. This increase was led by U.S. exports of semiconductor manufacturing and 

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

exports to Taiwan included semiconductor manufacturing and assembly equipment, 

staple crops (soybeans and corn), computer chips, aircraft, and ferrous waste and scrap. 

 100 USITC, Global Beef Trade, 2008, 6-2. 101 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. 102 USTR, “Statement from USTR Schwab,” June 25, 2008. 103 CRS, “KORUS FTA,” June 25, 2008, 49. 104 White House, “Remarks by the President,” December 4, 2010. 
5-20 

FIGURE 5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.14 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2006–10a 

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan amounted to $35.6 billion in 2010, representing a 

26.7 percent increase over 2009. The rise in overall imports from Taiwan was led by an 

increase in electronic component imports, which recovered as a result of rebounding U.S. 

consumer demand in 2010. Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan included cell phones, 

computer chips, computer parts, radio navigational aid apparatus (mainly GPS devices), 

and reception apparatus for television. U.S.-Taiwan merchandise trade data are shown in 

appendix tables A.39 through A.41. 

The U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) entered into 

effect in 1994 as the primary forum in which officials from the United States and Taiwan 

could address bilateral trade issues and promote economic cooperation. Traditionally, 

high-level meetings are held annually to promote continuing development of commercial 

opportunities. However, annual vice-ministerial meetings of the TIFA’s Council on Trade 

and Investment have been suspended since 2007, although working-level talks continued 

under the TIFA throughout the year. U.S. officials have limited engagement under the 

TIFA as a result of several of Taiwan’s trade-limiting policies, including continued 

sanitary and phytosanitary standards that restrict U.S. exports of beef.105 

The United States has continued to work with Taiwan on other issues important to 

bilateral trade, including IPR protection and Taiwan’s Country Specific Quota (CSQ) for 

public sector imports of U.S. rice. The IPR protection situation has improved in recent 

years: Taiwan was removed from the USTR Special 301 watch list in January 2009, and 

capacity-building programs and bilateral exchanges continued through 2010 to improve 

patent and copyright protection.106 In the case of the CSQ on U.S. rice, Taiwan met its 

procurement obligations in both 2009 and 2010 following shortfalls in both 2007 and 

2008.107 U.S. negotiators remain concerned over transparency issues in the tender bidding 

process, particularly as regards Taiwan’s use of ceiling prices on imports.108

 105American Chamber of Commerce, Taipei, “AmCham Urges Early Scheduling of TIFA Talks,” February 

9, 2010; USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 139. 106 USITC, Year in Trade 2009, 2010, 5-23; USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, 

March 2011, 140. 107 Taiwan awarded 7,634 tons of the globalized U.S. CSQ to an Australian rice handler in 2010, 

representing 11 percent of the total U.S. CSQ. The remainder of the U.S. CSQ was awarded to U.S. 

exporters. USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, Conclusion of the 2010 Rice CSQ Tenders,” January 3, 2011; 

USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, Conclusion of Taiwan 2009 CSQ Rice Quota Tenders,” December 17, 2009. 108 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 139. 
5-21 

Beef 

Since 2003, Taiwan has restricted imports of U.S. beef with the stated intention of 

protecting Taiwanese consumers from BSE.109 In October 2009, Taiwan and the United 

States agreed upon a protocol which permitted imports of most U.S. beef products, 

including bone-in beef. Under the protocol, beef from cattle over 30 months of age 

containing specified risk materials (SRMs) was banned, and as a transitional measure the 

U.S. beef industry agreed to voluntarily refrain from exporting all beef from animals over 

30 months of age despite not being formally obligated to do so under the protocol.110 

In January 2010, the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan passed an amendment to the Food 

Sanitation Act, a law that governs food safety, banning the importation of ground beef 

and offal products from any country that has had a case of BSE within the last 10 

years.111 While this measure affected only a small share of U.S. beef exports, USTR and 

U.S. legislators considered the amendment to be inconsistent with Taiwan’s obligations 

under the 2009 protocol.112 As a result, as noted earlier, high-level talks under the TIFA 

were not held in 2010.113

Although the beef dispute remained unresolved in 2010, U.S. beef exports to Taiwan 

reached $216 million, up 53 percent over 2009 levels and 102 percent over 2007 levels.114

Despite ongoing concerns over beef, in late 2010 senior U.S. officials expressed interest 

in scheduling the next high-level TIFA meeting in order to discuss IPR enforcement, 

pharmaceuticals and medical devices, standards, agricultural issues and technical barriers 

to trade, and investment.115 However, progress toward talks was halted in January 2011 

by a Taiwanese recall of some U.S. beef after trace levels of ractopamine, a drug legal in 

the United States that promotes leanness, were found in two U.S. shipments. U.S. 

officials are requesting clarification on standards for trace detection of the drug, and are 

concerned that the recall might reduce consumer demand for U.S. beef.116

 109 There have been three cases of BSE identified in the United States, none of which entered the food 

supply. The United States is considered to have “Controlled BSE Risk” by the OIE, meaning that it has taken 

steps necessary to minimize the risk posed by BSE. For further details, see CDC, “BSE,” March 17, 2011; 

USDA, APHIS, “BSE,” November 12, 2010; USTR, 2010 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 

March 31, 2010, 22. 110 Taiwan Department of Health, “Protocol of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE),” October 22, 

2009. 111 WTO, Trade Policy Review: Taiwan, July 2010, 62. 112 USTR, 2010 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2010, 70; USTR, “Joint Statement 

from USTR, USDA on Taiwan’s Actions to Unjustifiably Restrict U.S. Beef Imports,” January 5, 2010. 113 Committee on Ways and Means, “Rangel, Camp, Levin, Brady Urge Administration to Maintain 

Pressure on Taiwan to Fix Beef,” January 20, 2010. 114 USDA, FAS, FAS online database (accessed March 28, 2011). 115 AIT, “The United States and Taiwan: An Important Economic Relationship,” November 30, 2010; AIT, 

“U.S. and Taiwan Discuss Broadening Bilateral Trade Under TIFA,” September 29, 2010. 116 Taiwan Department of Health, “FDA Pledges Strict Inspections for Meat Safety,” January 18, 2011; 

USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 80. 
5-22 

Brazil 

Brazil was the United States’ 10th-largest single-country two-way trading partner, as well 

as the United States’ second-largest Latin American partner (and the largest South 

American partner) behind Mexico. Two-way merchandise trade between the two 

countries was valued at $53.6 billion in 2010, accounting for 1.8 percent of U.S. trade 

with the world. The United States recorded a $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil in 

2010, more than double its $2.5 billion surplus in 2009 and a striking change from the 

deficits recorded in previous years (figure 5.15). The U.S. services trade surplus 

increased by $2.8 billion to $10.6 billion in 2010 (figure 5.16). 

U.S. merchandise exports to Brazil amounted to $30.2 billion in 2010, an increase of 36.2 

percent from 2009. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil included aircraft and aircraft parts, 

petroleum-related oils and refined petroleum products, coal, medicaments, and vaccines. 

Among the leading exports, there were especially large increases in the value of exports 

of petroleum-related products and vaccines, as well as substantial increases in coal and 

medicaments as compared with 2009. The substantial increase in U.S. exports to Brazil 

allowed Brazil to rise from the 10th- to the 9th-largest single-country destination for U.S. 

exports in 2010. 

U.S. imports from Brazil totaled $23.4 billion in 2010, up 19.3 percent from 2009. This 

increase was led by U.S. imports of crude petroleum oils, unroasted coffee, chemical 

woodpulp, pig and semifinished iron, and aircraft. Despite strong increases in each of 

these leading U.S. imports from 2009, Brazil fell from the 16th- to 18th-largest singlecountry source of U.S. imports in 2010. U.S.-Brazil merchandise trade data are shown in 

appendix tables A.42 through A.44. 

FIGURE 5.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.16 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2006–10a 

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 
5-23 

There were developments in two WTO dispute settlement cases between the United 

States and Brazil in 2010. First, the United States and Brazil signed a memorandum of 

understanding as well as a framework agreement for enhancing bilateral cooperation in 

the cotton sector, as described in the following section. These steps were taken to help 

make progress in resolving the WTO dispute settlement case concerning U.S. subsidies 

on upland cotton (DS267), which found that U.S. cotton support payments and GSM-102 

agricultural export credit guarantees were inconsistent with U.S. WTO commitments.117 

Additionally, on May 10, 2010, a dispute settlement panel was composed for the case 

initiated by Brazil concerning U.S. Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other 

Measures Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil (DS382) (see table 

A.19). 

Cotton 

On April 20, 2010, U.S. and Brazilian officials signed a memorandum of understanding 

establishing a fund to provide technical assistance and capacity building for the Brazilian 

cotton sector. The fund holds a fixed amount valued at $147.3 million annually and may 

also be used to foster related international cotton cooperation in developing countries, 

including but not limited to those in sub-Saharan Africa, South American countries that 

are Mercosur members or associate members, and Haiti.118 Separately, the United States 

agreed to make some near-term modifications to the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee 

Program 119 and to engage in technical talks with Brazil about possible future 

modifications to the program, as well as to complete a risk evaluation assessing fresh 

beef imports from Brazil in order to prevent importation of foot-and-mouth disease into 

the United States.120 

On June 25, 2010, the United States and Brazil signed a Framework for a Mutually 

Agreed Solution to the Cotton Dispute,121 which addresses U.S. cotton domestic support 

and GSM-102 agricultural export credit guarantees. This agreement is intended to act as 

an interim solution to the cotton dispute 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 2012.122

The agreement sets parameters for negotiating a future annual limit on U.S. support for 

upland cotton and commits the United States to announce the allocation of the GSM-102 

program in two approximately equal installments each year, as well as to hold semiannual 

reviews of the operation of the program with the government of Brazil. Additionally, 

both delegations agreed to consult at least four times per year to discuss U.S. cotton 

support under any successor legislation to the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill, to exchange 

information on the GSM-102 program, and to discuss any other matters related to the 

cotton dispute.123 

 117 For more information on this dispute, see chapter 3 and table A.19. 118 USTR, “U.S., Brazil Agree on Memorandum of Understanding,” April 20, 2010. 119 The GSM-102 program is a USDA program that provides guarantees for credit extended by private U.S. 

banks to approved foreign banks for foreign purchases of U.S. agricultural products. 120 USTR, “U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute,” June 17, 2010. 121 WTO, “Joint Communication from Brazil and the United States,” WT/DS267/45, August 31, 2010. 122 USTR, “U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute,” June 17, 2010. 123 USTR, Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution, June 25, 2010. 
5-24 

India 

In 2010, India was the 12th-largest U.S. trading partner, accounting for 1.5 percent of 

total U.S. merchandise trade (exports plus imports). U.S.-India merchandise trade grew 

28.3 percent to $46.0 billion in 2010. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with India 

doubled, rising to $13.2 billion in 2010, an increase of $6.6 billion compared to 2009 

(figure 5.17). The U.S. services trade deficit with India also grew substantially, to $3.0 

billion in 2010, rising from $2.4 billion in 2009. U.S. imports of Indian services increased 

$1.1 billion to $13.5 billion, while U.S. exports of services to India increased $0.6 billion 

to $10.5 billion (figure 5.18). 

U.S. merchandise exports to India were $16.4 billion in 2010, up 12.1 percent compared 

to 2009. Leading U.S. exports to India were nonmonetary gold, civilian aircraft and parts, 

diammonium phosphate (fertilizer), nonindustrial diamonds, and coal. The value of 

exports of nonmonetary gold increased 83.4 percent, from $643 million in 2009 to $1.2 

billion in 2010, due to a 47.1 percent increase in quantity and a 26.1 percent increase in 

unit values. An important reason civil aircraft continued as a leading U.S. export to India 

was that Air India—the Indian flagship carrier—took delivery of three Boeing 777s in 

2010, although this was down from 12 the year before. As of the end of 2010, Air India 

and its subsidiaries had received 38 of the 68 aircraft it ordered from Boeing in 2005.124 

U.S. merchandise imports from India increased 39.5 percent to $29.6 billion in 2010. 

Leading U.S. imports by value from India were nonindustrial diamonds, refined 

petroleum, therapeutic or prophylactic medicaments, gold and platinum jewelry, and bed 

linens, towels, and apparel. Imports of nonindustrial diamonds increased 67.5 percent to 

$5.2 billion in 2010, compared to $3.1 billion in 2009. The Indian share of total U.S. 

imports of nonindustrial diamonds continued to increase, climbing from 24.8 percent in 

2009 to 28.6 percent in 2010. Similarly, the Indian share of total U.S. imports of gold and 

platinum jewelry also increased, although imports of these products from India were 

lower in 2010 than in 2008.125 U.S.-India merchandise trade data are shown in appendix 

tables A.45 through A.47. 

FIGURE 5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2006–10 FIGURE 5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2006–10a 

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

 a Data for 2010 are preliminary. 

 124 USDOC official, e-mail message to Commission staff, March 15, 2011. 125 In mid-2010, gold mixed-link necklaces and neck chains from India (HTS 7113.19.25) lost GSP dutyfree status as a result of USTR’s 2009 GSP Annual Product Review. See the chapter 2 section on GSP for 

more details. 
5-25 

Despite nontariff barriers and high—often prohibitive—tariffs on agriculture, 126 U.S. 

exports of agricultural products (HS chapters 1–24) to India increased $158.4 million 

(29.0 percent) to $703.9 million in 2010. During 2010, the United States and India 

discussed agricultural trade barriers and other bilateral economic issues in the U.S.-India 

Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which remained the primary forum for trade and economic 

dialogue between the two countries. Additionally, the United States continued to monitor 

India’s protection of IPR by continuing to place India on USTR’s Special 301 priority 

watch list. India’s agricultural trade policy, bilateral trade and investment issues, and IPR 

problems are discussed below. 

Agriculture 

Indian policymakers manage the supply of agricultural commodities in the domestic 

market by making frequent changes in India’s trade policies. India regularly adjusts 

restrictions, taxes, and subsidies on foreign trade in agricultural commodities in order to 

influence price and quantity in the Indian market, with the 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 like 

sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Conversely, when domestic stocks reach capacity, 

India typically subsidizes exports and bans or restricts imports using tariffs and nontariff 

measures.127 Because India is home to more than one-sixth of the world’s food consumers 

and more than one-twelfth of the world’s farmland,128 changes in India’s agricultural 

trade policies can impact U.S. and global trade in agricultural commodities. 

Some policy changes made in 2009 remained in place throughout 2010. For example, 

India’s duty on imports of rice, wheat, and sugar remained at zero.129 Also, exports of 

these commodities remained banned, with some exceptions. 

Edible Oil 

India continues to encourage imports of crude edible oils, often from the United States. 

India’s tariff on crude edible oils, which was suspended in April 2008, remained 

suspended for all of 2010.130 As a result, U.S. exports of crude soybean oil to India, 

which were effectively zero in 2008, rose to $119.7 million in 2009, and increased 

another 11.0 percent to $132.9 million in 2010. U.S. exports of crude sunflower and 

safflower oil likewise were all but nonexistent in 2009, but increased to $13.8 million in 

2010. 

Cotton 

The United States is the third-largest producer of cotton and the largest exporter of cotton 

in the world, accounting for almost half of all cotton exports globally. As a result, the 

U.S. cotton sector is sensitive to changes in other countries’ cotton trade policies. India, 

the second-largest producer of cotton after China, only became a net exporter of cotton 

 126 USITC, India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures, November 2009, i. 127 USITC, India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures, November 2009, 5–7. 128 CIA, “India,” in World Factbook, January 21, 2010. 129 For more information on India’s policies concerning rice, wheat, and sugar, see USITC, Year In Trade, 

2009, 5-28 to 5-29. 130 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Oilseeds and Products Update,” March 7, 2011. 
5-26 

within the last 10 years.131 Until April 2010, cotton exports were allowed subject to 

monitoring by India’s Textile Commissioner’s Office via a registration requirement.132 In 

April, the Textile Commissioner’s Office suspended registration of cotton exports, 

effectively banning exports.133 Shortly after, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade 

moved cotton to the restricted list, imposing licensing restrictions on the export of cotton. 

In September, India announced that it was establishing an export quota of 4.3 million 

bales for the October 2010 to September 2011 marketing year.134 These policy changes 

were a reaction to large increases in world prices for cotton as India sought to protect its 

domestic textile and apparel industries from these higher prices.135 

Pulses 

Since India was the largest export market for U.S. pulses (chickpeas and peas) in the 

2010 crop year, India’s pulse trade policy is important to U.S. producers.136 India’s recent 

policies have aimed to encourage imports of pulses, including from the United States. 

The duty on India’s pulse imports was suspended in June 2006, and is expected to 

continue to be suspended until at least March 2011.137 India also continued its policy of 

subsidizing imports of pulses (up to 15 percent of the import price).138 India’s ban on the 

export of pulses (with the exception of Kabuli garbanzos), which has also been in place 

since June 2006, was likewise extended through March 2011.139

Nonetheless, serious regulatory problems may discourage U.S. pulse exports to India. 

Since January 2004, pulse imports from all origins to India have been subject to 

fumigation by methyl bromide at the port of loading, per the Plant Quarantine Regulation 

of Import into India Order, 2003. As methyl bromide is being phased out in most 

countries due to environmental concerns, this rule may prove costly to U.S. pulse 

exporters in the future. Recently, the Indian government extended until September 2011 

an arrangement to import pulses shipped from the United States subject to fumigation by 

methyl bromide at the port of arrival in India. 140 However, unless the fumigation 

requirement is removed, U.S. exports of pulses to India cannot be sustained. 141

Trade and Investment Dialogue 

U.S. and Indian officials signed a Framework for Cooperation on Trade and Investment 

on March 17, 2010. The agreement strengthens bilateral cooperation and seeks to build 

on recent rapid growth in U.S.-India trade. Under the agreement, the TPF will remain the 

primary bilateral mechanism through which the two countries will encourage trade, 

 131 USDA, ERS, “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,” March 2011; USDA, FAS, “GAIN 

Report: India: Cotton and Products Annual,” April 12, 2010. 132 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Cotton and Products Annual,” April 12, 2010. 133 Suspending registration of exports has the effect of stopping (banning) exports of goods that have not 

yet been registered. USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Exports of Cotton Allowed Under License,” June 4, 

2010. 134 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Cotton Update—January 2011,” January 7, 2011. 135 USDA, ERS, “Cotton Outlook: Appendix Table 13—Index of Selected Cotton Price Quotation 

Offerings” (accessed June 6, 2011). 136 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual,” February 23, 2011. 137 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual,” February 17, 2010; USDA, FAS, “GAIN 

Report, India: Grain and Feed Update: May 2010,” April 30, 2010. 138 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Update: May 2010,” April 30, 2010. 139 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual,” February 17, 2010; USDA, FAS, “GAIN 

Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual,” February 23, 2011. 140 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual,” February 23, 2011. 141 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual,” February 17, 2010. 
5-27 

investment, collaboration, and innovation, as well as develop and carry out policies that 

promote transparency, inclusive economic growth, and compliance with international 

obligations. Additionally, the United States and India will continue to use the five TPF 

focus groups (agriculture, innovation and creativity, investment, services, and tariffs and 

nontariff barriers) to engage on these matters.142

The seventh ministerial-level meeting of the TPF was held on September 21, 2010, in 

Washington, D.C., where the two governments identified areas for future constructive 

engagement and exchanged concerns on some issues.143 The U.S. and Indian chairs of the 

TPF focus groups also met during 2010. The groups discussed IPR, market access in the 

services sector, tariff and nontariff measures, agricultural and industrial standards issues, 

and investment policy. Additionally, the Private Sector Advisory Group (PSAG) 

presented a report to the TPF, which recommended that both countries sign an agreement 

on technology trade and also take steps to increase investment in Indian logistics and 

infrastructure.144

Intellectual Property Rights 

In 2010, India remained on USTR’s priority watch list of countries with significant IPR 

problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation.145 USTR continues to 

urge India to improve its IPR regime with stronger protection for copyrights and 

patents.146 In addition, USTR has been pressing for legislation to protect against Indian 

firms’ unfair commercial use of private data that foreign pharmaceutical and 

agrochemical companies have developed in clinical and field trials before applying for 

marketing approval from the Indian government. USTR also identified the need for new 

Indian legislation to implement the provisions of the WIPO Internet treaties and to 

address optical-disc piracy. USTR identified as a positive development India’s 

incremental improvements in IPR enforcement and modernization efforts. The United 

States was also encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible 

trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol, 

a treaty covering the international registration of trademarks.147

Russia 

In 2010, Russia ranked 23rd among the United States’ major single-country trading 

partners, accounting for 1.0 percent of total U.S. two-way merchandise trade (exports 

plus imports). The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Russia worsened substantially 

from the previous year, increasing from $12.3 billion in 2009 to $19.5 billion in 2010, a 

change of 59.4 percent (figure 5.19). This growing deficit was in large part attributable to 

U.S. imports of petroleum and other primary commodities. Prices for these goods 

resumed their upward trend in 2010, after plunging sharply in 2009 as the global 

recession took hold. 148 In 2010, U.S. merchandise imports from Russia ($25.2 billion) 

were over four times larger than U.S. exports to Russia ($5.7 billion). Data are not 

available for U.S. trade in private services with Russia. 

 142 USTR, “United States-India Trade Policy Forum,” March 17, 2010. 143 USTR, “Joint Statement Regarding the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum,” September 21, 2010. 144 USTR, “U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum Facts,” September 21, 2010. 145 USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 26. 146 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 175. 147 USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 26. 148 WTO, “Trade Growth to Ease in 2011,” April 7, 2011, 6. 
5-28 

FIGURE 5.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, 2006–10 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

U.S. exports of goods to Russia increased 9.6 percent from $5.2 billion in 2009 to $5.7 

billion in 2010. Leading U.S. exports during 2010 were aircraft; mechanical machinery, 

such as boring, harvesting, and sinking machinery, gas turbines, and parts; foods, such as 

chicken, pork, and beef; motor vehicles, such as passenger cars, dump trucks, and 

tractors; and primary form chemicals, such as cellulose and polyvinyl chloride. 

The value of U.S. imports of goods from Russia rose much more steeply than U.S. 

exports, increasing 44.7 percent from $17.4 billion in 2009 to $25.2 billion in 2010. In 

large part this was because the prices of major U.S. imports from Russia—e.g., metals 

and energy products—rose much more significantly than the prices of U.S. exports to 

Russia. 149 Leading U.S. imports during 2010 were oil and oil products; liquefied 

ethylene, propylene, butylene, and other distillates; and metals, such as uranium, nickel, 

ferrochromium, aluminum, palladium, and titanium. U.S.-Russia merchandise trade data 

are shown in appendix tables A.48 through A.50. 

In January 2009, the United States and Russia established a more structured forum—the 

Bilateral Presidential Commission—through which to pursue joint action and projects 

aimed at strengthening international security, encouraging economic well-being, and 

developing ties between the two countries.150 In the area of economic and trade relations, 

Russia has worked since the early 1990s to transform its centrally planned economy into 

a free market system. A key element in this economic transformation has been Russia’s 

ongoing negotiation of its terms of accession to the WTO and the OECD. In November 

2006, the United States and Russia reached a bilateral market access agreement as part of 

Russia’s WTO accession negotiations,151 and Russia is continuing similar negotiations 

with other WTO members. 

 149 WTO, “Trade Growth to Ease in 2011,” April 7, 2011, 6. 150 USDOS, “Background Note: Russia,” June 14, 2010. The commission currently includes 16 working 

groups, chaired by senior government officials from a variety of agencies and ministries, seeking to advance 

priority bilateral objectives on topics that include policy steering; agriculture; arms control; business 

development and economic relations; civil society; counterterrorism; counternarcotics; education, culture, 

sports, and mass media; science and technology; energy; environment; emergency situations; health; military 

to military; and nuclear energy, nuclear security, and space cooperation. 151 For details, see USITC, Year in Trade 2006, 2007, 5-24 to 5-26. 
5-29 

WTO Accession Negotiations 

At the end of 2010, 17 years after Russia’s original application for WTO membership in 

June 1993, Russia’s accession negotiations were reported to be in their final stages. 

Complications continue, however, including Russia’s response to the 2008 global 

economic crisis, which it handled by increasing tariffs and raising other trade barriers;152

the 2010 entry into force of a Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan Customs Union (RBKCU), 

which led Russia to briefly suspend work on its WTO accession;153 and the need for the 

U.S. Congress to pass legislation to grant Russia permanent “normal trade relations” 

tariff treatment.154 Increasingly restrictive tariff-rate quotas and repeated flare-ups over 

sanitary and veterinary regulations with the United States, EU nations, and other WTO 

members have raised concerns about the erosion of these countries’ already-agreed 

bilateral accession agreements with Russia and, more broadly, about Russia’s 

commitment to carry out its negotiated WTO obligations.155 The United States, along 

with the EU and WTO Secretariat, have been working with Russia to resolve remaining 

multilateral issues and to address any new issues that emerge from Russia’s membership 

in the RBKCU in order to expedite and complete Russia’s WTO accession 

negotiations.156

Trilateral U.S.-EU-Russia Accession Meetings 

In the first quarter of 2010, the United States, EU, and Russia held a number of trilateral 

meetings to develop a plan to restart work on Russia’s WTO accession, following the 

uncertainty created by the RBKCU announcement in June 2009. At their third meeting on 

March 16–17, 2010, the United States, the EU, and Russia settled on three main tasks 

deemed necessary to move forward with Russia’s WTO accession bid.157

The first task involves Russia implementing legislative and regulatory commitments 

made previously in order to rebuild confidence in Russia as an accession applicant—

commitments such as the 2006 U.S.-Russia market access agreement covering trade in 

goods, services, and intellectual property protection.158 The second task involves updating 

and completing Russia’s draft WTO accession working party report, specifically 

regarding (1) identification, translation, tracking, and delivery of priority legislation and 

other key documents; (2) incorporation into the draft working party report of the changes 

arising from the formation and implementation of the RBKCU; and (3) conclusion of 

 152 USDOS, “Background Note: Russia,” June 14, 2010. 153 On June 9, 2009, Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan announced in Moscow that they would form a 

customs union, to take effect in 2010. The three countries suspended their separate WTO accession 

negotiations, initially indicating their intent to accede to the WTO as a single customs union but later 

indicating their intent to complete independent WTO accessions. Subsequently, the RBKCU entered into 

effect on January 1, 2010, establishing a common external tariff, and the RBKCU Customs Code entered into 

effect on July 1, 2010. USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 105–6; 

USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “October 15, 2009 Informal Consultations,” November 9, 2009, par. 3. 154 At present, the United States accords Russia conditional normal trade relations (NTR) tariff treatment––

also known as “most favored nation” trading status––pursuant to the provisions of title IV of the U.S. Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, which includes the “freedom of emigration” requirements of the Jackson-Vanik 

amendment (19 U.S.C. 2432). A legacy of U.S. policies toward Communist countries in Europe and 

elsewhere, this provision denies NTR treatment to countries that deny their citizens the right to emigrate. For 

details, see USITC, Year in Trade 2006, 2007, 5-24 to 5-26. 155 USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “October 15, 2009 Informal Consultations,” November 9, 2009, par. 2, 

7, 8, 13. 156 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 105–6. 157 USDOS, Secretary of State, “Russia and the WTO,” March 30, 2010, par. 4. 158 USDOS, Secretary of State, “Russia and the WTO,” March 30, 2010, par. 4; USITC, Year in Trade 

2006, 2007, 5-24 to 5-26. 
5-30 

negotiations on remaining issues––such as export duties, state-owned enterprises, and 

transparency concerns––and incorporation of these commitments into the report. The 

third task involves finalizing Russia’s market access commitments on goods and services, 

including Russia’s delivery of consolidated tariff schedules to the United States and the 

EU; concording Russia’s current tariff nomenclature to more recent ones published by the 

global Harmonized System (HS), such as HS2002 and HS2007; and furnishing more 

recent trade data. Completing these tasks would provide a Russian tariff schedule and set 

of commitments that Russia’s customs union partners––Belarus and Kazakhstan––could 

then agree to in their accession bids.159

Obama-Medvedev Meeting 

On June 24, 2010, U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev met in 

Washington, DC, as part of an initiative to develop a more substantive bilateral 

relationship between the two countries,160 including reaffirming a U.S. commitment to 

Russia’s accession to the WTO as soon as possible.161 In a joint statement released as part 

of the meeting, the two governments agreed that they would aim to resolve their 

outstanding bilateral accession issues by September 30, 2010. The statement went on to 

say that following settlement of these issues, the United States would agree to offer its 

full support to Russia’s WTO accession bid, provided that the Russian government 

committed to the accelerated adoption of legislation and other measures that would bring 

it into conformity with WTO requirements for accession.162

Renewed WTO Accession Working Party Meetings 

Following the RBKCU’s entry into effect on January 1, 2010, Russia proceeded to 

furnish the necessary documentation to the WTO Working Party on the Accession of the 

Russian Federation concerning the RBKCU’s common customs regulations, practices, 

and procedures. Informal working party consultations were held on September 21, 

October 25, and December 8, 2010 to review revised sections of the draft text of Russia’s 

working party report, Russia’s draft consolidated schedule of commitments and 

concessions on trade in services, and updated data on Russia’s agricultural supports. The 

working party also heard from the WTO Secretariat on the continuing consolidation of 

Russia’s bilateral market access agreements on goods, and efforts being made to adjust 

those commitments in terms of the HS nomenclature used for the customs union’s 

common external tariff.163

U.S.-Russia Bilateral Trade Issues 

Despite currently negotiating accession to the WTO, Russia continues to maintain a 

number of import restrictions, such as tariff-rate quotas (TRQs); customs charges and 

 159 USDOS, Secretary of State, “Russia and the WTO,” March 30, 2010, par. 4. 160 White House, “U.S.-Russia Relations: ‘Reset’ Fact Sheet,” June 24, 2010. 161 White House, “Joint Statement by the Presidents,” June 24, 2010. 162 White House, “Remarks by President Obama and President Medvedev, East Room,” June 24, 2010. On 

November 13, 2010, Presidents Obama and Medvedev held a further bilateral meeting in Yokohama, Japan, 

following which President Medvedev noted the serious progress made in moving Russia closer to WTO 

accession as a result of U.S. efforts to resolve outstanding bilateral trade issues since their June meeting. 

White House, “Remarks by President Obama and President Medvedev in Yokohama, Japan,” November 13, 

2010. 163 USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, March 2011, 105–6. 
5-31 

fees that exceed the cost of service provided; valuation procedures that inflate tariff 

charges; and burdensome licensing, registration, and certification regimes.164

Beef, Pork, and Poultry Quotas 

In December 2009,165 Russia extended its quota regime for meat and poultry products for 

2010–12, reducing in-quota market access for pork and poultry.166 Since the onset of the 

2008 global economic downturn, Russian TRQs (in aggregate) for beef, pork, and poultry 

meat combined have tightened from 2.2 million metric tons (mt) in 2008 to 2.0 million in 

2009 (–9.9 percent), and to 1.8 million in 2010 (–6.3 percent) (see table 5.1).167 In May 

2010, the government amended its quota regime to establish a quota monitoring process 

for frozen beef, pork, and poultry imports, as well as reallocate country-specific quotas.168 

With the entry into effect of the RBKCU Customs Code on July 1, 2010, the Customs 

Union Commission became the body responsible for determining the overall TRQ 

volume for imported products and its allocation among the three partners. The 

commission announced the 2011 TRQs for meat and poultry imports on November 18, 

2010. 169 Russia followed with its quota distribution of December 25, 2010, sharply 

cutting its poultry TRQ for 2011 from 600,000 mt in 2010 to 350,000 mt in 2011. Russia 

also narrowed the poultry product definition of the poultry TRQ and discontinued 

country-specific allocations for poultry in 2011.170

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Restrictions 

Russia maintains extremely prescriptive sanitary and phytosanitary standards regarding 

production facilities and processes as part of its food safety requirements, and according 

to USTR, often attempts to impose these standards on facilities exporting to and goods 

imported into Russia.171 In 2010, U.S. exports to Russia were restricted or prohibited as a 

result of such standards, affecting U.S. pork and poultry production processes in 

particular. 

In late 2009, Russia announced a zero-tolerance standard for minimum residue levels of 

tetracycline-group antibiotics found in pork products, effectively restricting 95 percent of 

U.S. pork production facilities. 172 In January 2010, the Russian veterinary authority 

amended this standard to allow for minimum residue findings of up to 10 parts-per- 

 164 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 305–6. 165 Resolution No. 1021 of December 16, 2009. USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, Big Moves to SelfSufficiency,” April 6, 2010; USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, GOR Resolution No. 306 Establishes TRQ 

Reallocation,” May 11, 2010. 166 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 306. 167 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, Big Moves to Self-Sufficiency,” April 6, 2010, 7. Russian TRQs for beef, 

pork, and poultry meat combined announced in April 2010 included further reductions planned for 2011 and 

2012, to 1.7 million in 2011 (-9.8 percent) and to 1.6 million in 2012 (-6.0 percent). 168 Resolution No. 306 of May 5, 2010. USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, GOR Resolution No. 306 Establishes 

TRQ Reallocation,” May 11, 2010, 1–2. Under Resolution No. 306, the government will monitor imports of 

frozen beef, pork, and poultry to see whether individual supplier countries meet 11.5 percent of their annual 

country-specific quota during any two month period and, if not, the Russian government may reallocate 

import licenses to any other supplier country. 169 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 306. 170 USDA, FAS, “GAIN report, Russia Announces 2011 TRQ Quantities,” December 27, 2010. 171 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 71. 172 USDOC, USF&CS, Doing Business in Russia, 2010, chapter 4; USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 73. 
5-32 

TABLE 5.1 Russian tariff-rate quota quantities for meat and poultry, 2006-10a

 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Thousand metric tons 

Total 2,069.7 2,125.3 2,179.0 1,963.4 1,840.0 

 

Beef: frozen 435.0 440.0 445.0 450.0 530.0 

 United States 17.9 18.1 18.3 18.5 21.7 

 

Pork: fresh/chilled/frozen 476.1 484.8 493.5 531.9 472.1 

 United States 54.8 49.0 49.8 100.0 57.5 

 

Pork: trimmings (

b

) (b) (b) (b) 27.9 

 

Poultry: fresh/chilled/frozen 1,130.8 1,172.2 1,211.6 952.0 780.0 

 United States 841.3 871.4 901.4 750.0 600.0 

Source: USDA, FAS, "Big Moves to Self-Sufficiency," Poultry and Products Semi-Annual, table 4. Russia TariffRate Quota Quantities and U.S. Shares, 1000 MT, GAIN report no. RS1020, April 6, 2010. 

 a On December 25, 2010, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development announced the initial distribution of 2011 

tariff-rate quota quantities (TRQs) to importers, sharply reducing the poultry TRQ from 600,000 mt in 2010 to 

350,000 mt in 2011, as well as narrowing the poultry product scope and no longer allocating country-specific TRQs 

for poultry. Fresh beef, pork, and pork trimming TRQs remained unchanged from 2010. Russia increased the U.S. 

frozen beef TRQ allocation, from 21,700 mt in 2010 to 41,700 mt in 2011, making an equivalent reduction in the 

frozen beef TRQ for “Other Countries.” USDA, FAS, "GAIN Report, Russia Announces 2011 TRQ Quantities,” 

December 27, 2010. 

 b Not applicable. 

billion, but still without providing justification for standards more stringent than 

international norms.173 Russia continues to restrict imports from U.S. facilities based on 

findings of tetracycline-group antibiotics.174

On January 1, 2010, Russia banned the importation and sale of poultry meat treated with 

chlorine-water solutions that exceed the levels allowed in drinking water, a measure that 

resulted in a virtual ban of U.S. poultry exports to Russia due to the widespread use of the 

chlorine-rinse process by the U.S. poultry meat industry as a standard antimicrobial 

treatment.175 On June 24, 2010, the two governments reached an agreement that would 

allow U.S. poultry exports to Russia to resume, 176 with U.S. producers regaining 

eligibility to ship poultry items produced on or after July 14, 2010.177 Although these 

bilateral negotiations led to resumption of U.S. poultry exports to Russia by September 

2010, the issue of the chlorine-rinse restriction itself remains unresolved. Related issues 

include the maximum limit set by the Russian government on the water content in chilled 

and frozen chicken, as well as a resolution that bans the importation and sale of poultry 

frozen for longer than three months if destined for processing into baby food or for 

special diets.178

For poultry, Russia maintains a zero-tolerance standard for salmonella and other bacterial 

disease pathogens, as well as for minimum residue levels of many veterinary drugs used 

 173 USDOC, USF&CS, Doing Business in Russia, 2010, chapter 4. 174 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 73. 175 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 71; USDOC, USF&CS, 

“Doing Business in Russia: 2010 Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies,” 2010, chapter 4. 176 White House, “Remarks by President Obama and President Medvedev, East Room,” June 24, 2010. 177 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, Russia Resumes Imports of U.S. Poultry,” September 21, 2010, 6. 178 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 71–72. 
5-33 

in U.S. poultry production. These requirements have led to multiple restrictions on U.S. 

poultry facilities, in addition to the exported product.179

Intellectual Property Rights 

Although Russia made some progress in improving its IPR protection and enforcement, 

USTR continues to include Russia on the priority watch list in the 2010 Special 301 

Report. 180 Key USTR concerns include Russia’s slow implementation of some 

commitments made in the 2006 IPR agreement 181 between the U.S. and Russian 

governments, concluded as part of market access negotiations for Russian accession to 

the WTO.182 The agreement committed Russia to fight optical-disc and Internet piracy, 

enact legislation to protect against unfair commercial use of pharmaceutical test data, 

deter piracy and counterfeiting through tougher criminal penalties, strengthen border 

enforcement of IPRs, and conform domestic laws to international IPR standards.183

According to USTR, in 2010, Internet piracy in Russia was a growing concern, despite 

the opening of several criminal investigations against suspect operators of Russian Web 

sites providing access to infringing materials. U.S. and multinational companies also 

continue to report Russian counterfeiting of trademarked goods, in particular consumer 

goods, distilled spirits, agricultural chemicals and biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. 

Optical-disc piracy also continues to be an issue. Moreover, poor IPR law enforcement is 

a widespread problem with, for example, reports of surprise raids on illegal optical-disc 

facilities compromised by unauthorized advance notice of the raids to facility 

operators.184

 179 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 71–73. Even after imports 

of U.S. poultry resumed in September 2010, Russia restricted some U.S. poultry shipments based on findings 

of salmonella. 180 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 309. 181 The November 2006 Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

government of the Russian Federation on Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (2006 

IPR Agreement). USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 309; 

USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 23. 182 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 309; USTR, 

2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 23. 183 USTR, 2010 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2010, 23. 184 USTR, 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2011, 309–311. 

Biblio-1 

Bibliography 

American Chamber of Commerce, Japan (ACCJ). “An American in Yokohama.” ACCJ Journal, January 

15, 2011. http://accjjournal.com/an-american-in-yokohama/. 

American Chamber of Commerce, Taipei. “AmCham Urges Early Scheduling of TIFA Talks.” Press 

release, February 9, 2010. 

American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). “The United States and Taiwan: An Important Economic 

Relationship,” November 30, 2010. http://www.ait.org.tw/en/officialtext-ot1029.html. 

———. “U.S. and Taiwan Discuss Broadening Bilateral Trade under Trade and Investment Framework 

Agreement (TIFA).” Press release, September 29, 2010. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Joint Statement.” 22nd APEC Ministerial Meeting, 

Yokohama, Japan, November 10–11, 2010. http://publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=1094. 

———. “Leaders’ Declaration 2010: The Yokohama Vision—Bogor and Beyond.” APEC Economic 

Leaders’ Meeting, November 13–14, 2010, 1–7. http://publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=1094. 

———. “Leaders’ Statement on the 2010 Bogor Goals Assessment.” APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting, 

November 14, 2010, 8–10. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1094. 

———. “Pathways to FTAAP.” APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting, November 14, 2010, 4–12. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1094. 

———. The Report on APEC’s 2010 Economies’ Progress towards the Bogor Goals. APEC Economic 

Leaders’ Meeting. Yokohama, Japan: APEC, November 14, 2010. 

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/apec/2010/docs/aelmdeclaration2010_e02.pdf. 

———. “Statement on Supporting the Multilateral Trading System and Resisting Protectionism.” APEC 

Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Trade, Sapporo, Japan, June 5–6, 2010.

http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/MinisterialStatements/Trade/2010_trade/2010_mrt_standalone.aspx. 

———. Tariffs and ROOs in APEC Economies (WebTR). http://www.apec.org/Groups/Committee-onTrade-and-Investment/Rules-of-Origin/WebTR.aspx (accessed March 21, 2011). 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). APEC Secretariat. APEC at a Glance 2011. APEC#210-

SE-05.3. Singapore: APEC, November 2010. http://publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=1077. 

———. Outcomes & Outlook 2010–11. APEC#211-SE-05.1. Singapore: APEC, February 2011. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1123. 
Biblio-2 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI). 2009 CTI 

Annual Report to Ministers. APEC#209-CT-01.12. Singapore: APEC, November 2009. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=945. 

———. 2010 CTI Annual Report to Ministers. APEC#210-CT-01.6. Singapore: APEC, November 2010. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1081. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Senior Officials’ Meeting Chair’s Office. “APEC Ministers 

Take Concrete Actions to Improve Business Environment.” Press release, November 12, 2009. 

Bach, Christopher L. “A Guide to the U.S. International Transactions Accounts and the U.S. International 

Investment Position Accounts.” Survey of Current Business 90, no. 2 (February 2010): 33–51. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “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, March 1, 2011. 

———. “Summary Measures of the Foreign Exchange Value of the Dollar,” n.d. 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/Summary/ (accessed April 11, 2011). 

Central Intelligence Agency (USCIA). The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/ (accessed April 20, 2010). 

Chu, Kathleen, and Daniel Ten Kate. “U.S. Puts ‘Foot to the Pedal’ to Conclude Asia Trade Deal, USTR 

Kirk Says.” Bloomberg, November 14, 2010. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-14/u-sputs-foot-to-the-pedal-to-conclude-asia-trade-deal-ustr-kirk-says.html. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “CEC Ministerial Statement: Seventeenth Regular 

Session of the CEC Council.” Guanajuato, Mexico, August 17, 2010. 

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=1226&ContentID=&SiteNodeID=219&BL_ExpandID=15

8. 

———. “Citizen Submission on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions.” 

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=544 (accessed March 24, 2011). 

———. “Citizen Submission on Enforcement Matters: A Guide to Articles 14 and 15.” 

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1388&SiteNodeID=210 (accessed March 

24, 2011). 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Secretariat. “Three Countries Working Together to 

Protect our Shared Environment.” http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=310

(accessed March 25, 2011). 

Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC). “The National Administrative Offices.” 

http://www.naalc.org/commission/nao.htm (accessed March 25, 2011). 

Congressional Research Service (CRS). The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS 

FTA): Provisions and Implications. Washington, DC: CRS, March 1, 2011. 
Biblio-3 

———. U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications. Washington, DC: CRS, 

February 24, 2011. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

“BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease),” March 17, 2011. 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/. 

Ernst & Young. “U.S. Property/Casualty Insurance Industry Outlook,” January 2011. 

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/2011_US_property_casualty_outlook/$FILE/US_pr

operty_casualty_outlook.pdf. 

European Commission. “EU-U.S. Summit 20 November 2010, Lisbon: Joint Statement.” News release, 

Memo/10/597, November 20, 2010. 

———. “Transatlantic Economic Council: EU and US Launch Joint Website Against Counterfeiting and 

Piracy.” News release, IP/10/1740, December 17, 2010. 

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). Global Trade Atlas database (accessed March 22, 2011). 

Government of Canada. “Softwood Lumber Exports to the United States: Additional Export Charge on 

Softwood Lumber Products Originating from Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.” 

Press release, August 23, 2010. 

Government of Canada. Office of the Minister of Industry. “Government of Canada Introduces Proposals 

to Modernize the Copyright Act.” News release, June 2, 2010. 

Government of Japan. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA). “Basic Policy on Comprehensive 

Economic Partnerships,” November 6, 2010. 

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/policy20101106.html. 

Government of Malaysia. Ministry of International Trade and Industry. “Malaysia Joins the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership Agreement Negotiations.” Press release, October 6, 2010. 

Inside Washington Publishers. “Countries Agree on ‘Home Market Rule’ Deviations; Final ASU Text 

Inked.” World Trade Online database, January 6, 2011. 

———. “Order Signals U.S. Victory in Canada Lumber Case.” World Trade Online database, February 5, 

2010. 

———. “U.S., Canada Enter Preliminary Stage Of Broadening Bilateral Procurement.” World Trade 

Online database, February 17, 2011. 

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 on Copyright Protection and Enforcement, February 15, 2011. 

International Monetary Fund (IMF). International Financial Statistics database (accessed March 29, 

2011). 
Biblio-4 

———. World Economic Outlook: Tensions from the Two-Speed Recovery; Unemployment, 

Commodities, and Capital Flows. Washington, DC: IMF, April 2011. 

Irish Food Board. “Russian Meat Import Quotas for Rest of 2011 Allocated.” FoodAlert, April 29, 2011. 

http://www.bordbia.ie/industryservices/alerts/Pages/Russianmeatimportquotasforrestof2011alloca

ted.aspx?src=home. 

Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. “Japanese Government Incentives for the Purchase of 

Environmentally Friendly Vehicles.” Fact sheet, September 24, 2009. 

London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). “Case No. 7941: The United States of America, 

Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; Award on Remedies,” February 23, 2009. 

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/award_on_remedy.pdf. 

———. “Case No. 91312: Canada, Claimant, v. The United States of America, Respondent; Award,” 

September 28, 2009. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1379.

———. “The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; Request for Arbitration,” 

January 18, 2008.

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/provincial_us_request_for_arbitration.pdf. 

———. “The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent; Request for Arbitration,” 

January 18, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2484. 

NAFTA Secretariat. “Chapter 11: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada.” 

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/dispdiff/gov.aspx?lang=en (accessed April 20, 2011). 

———. “Chapter 19 Active Cases: Reviewing Canadian, U.S., and Mexican Agencies’ Determinations.”

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/StatusReportResults.aspx (accessed March 24, 2011). 

———. “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions.” http://www.nafta-secalena.org/en/view.aspx?x=226 (accessed March 24, 2011). 

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). “Announcement of June 2009 Business Cycle 

Trough/End of Last Recession,” September 20, 2010. http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html. 

North American Development Bank (NADB). BECC-COCEF Quarterly Status Report, December 31, 

2010. http://www.nadbank.org/pdfs/status_eng.pdf. 

———. “Summary of Project Implementation Activities," December 31, 2010. 

http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/ProjectMatrix_Eng.pdf. 

OIE. See World Organization for Animal Health. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “2007 Sector Understanding on 

Export Credits for Civil Aircraft.” News release, September 5, 2007. 

———. “34th Meeting of the Group on the Aircraft Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil 

Aircraft.” News release, November 22, 2007. 
Biblio-5 

———. “Agreement in Principle Reached on Export Credits for Commercial Aircraft.” News release, 

December 22, 2010. 

———. “Aircraft Sector Understanding,” February 2, 2011. 

———. “Brazil Joins OECD Countries in Landmark Pact on Civil Aircraft Export Credits,” July 30, 

2007. 

———. “Export Credits Arrangement and Sector Understandings,” March 4, 2011. 

———. “OECD Invites China and Russia to Join New Aircraft Financing Agreement.” News release, 

February 25, 2011. 

———. “Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft: (the ASU) 2010 Review,” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/document/1/0,3746,en_2649_34169_44763201_1_1_1_37431,00.html 

(accessed March 10, 2011). 

———. “Trade: Agreement in Principle Reached on Export Credits for Commercial Aircraft.” News 

release, December 22, 2010. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Council. “Meeting of the Council at 

Ministerial Level, 27–28 May 2010: 2010 Ministerial Conclusions (Adopted at the Council 

Meeting at Ministerial Level on 28 May 2010).” C/MIN(2010)6/FINAL, May 28, 2010. 

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. “Summary Record of the 154th Session of the Trade Committee: Confidential 

Session, Paris, 4 February 2010.” TAD/TC/M(2010)1/ANN, March 1, 2011. 

———. “Summary Record of the 154th Session of the Trade Committee: Plenary Session, Paris, 4 

February 2010.” TAD/TC/M(2010)1, March 1, 2011. 

———. “Summary Record of the 155th Session of the Trade Committee: Paris, 11–12 May 2010.” 

TAD/TC/M(2010)2, March 1, 2011. 

———. Working Party of the Trade Committee. “Aide-memoire, 14–15 June 2010.” 

TAD/TC/WP/M(2010)2, July 22, 2010. 

———. Working Party of the Trade Committee. “Aide-memoire: Confidential Session, 14 December 

2010.” TAD/TC/WP/M(2010)4/ANN, March 8, 2011. 

———. Working Party of the Trade Committee. “Aide-memoire: Confidential Session, 15 June 2010.” 

TAD/TC/WP/M(2010)2/ANN, August 19, 2010. 

———. Working Party of the Trade Committee. “Aide-memoire: Confidential Session, 27–28 September 

2010.” TAD/TC/WP/M(2010)3/ANN, December 9, 2010. 
Biblio-6 

———. Working Party of the Trade Committee. “Aide-memoire: Plenary Session, 13–14 December 

2010.” TAD/TC/WP/M(2010)4, March 3, 2011. 

———. Working Party of the Trade Committee. “Aide-memoire: Plenary Session, 27–28 September 

2010.” TAD/TC/WP/M(2010)3, December 9, 2010. 

Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE). “A Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Future of the 

Asia Pacific Region,” October 25, 2010. 

http://www.iie.com/events/event_detail.cfm?EventID=166. 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). “Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America Special (PhRMA) Special 301 Submission 2010.” 

http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/2010301-phrma (accessed April 27, 2011). 

Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg, P.A. “Apparel Sector Expected to Play a Critical Role in Haiti’s 

Recovery.” ST&R-TAPTM Advisor–Latest U.S. News, January 28, 2010. 

———. “Haiti Suffers Devastating Earthquake: Impact on Apparel Sector Still Unknown.” ST&R-TAPTM 

Advisor–Latest U.S. News, January 14, 2010. 

Scott Thomas, Sarah, and Erin M. Whitaker. “U.S. International Transactions: Second Quarter of 2010.” 

Survey of Current Business 90, no. 10 (2011): 62–69. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/10%20October/1010_itaq_text.pdf. 

Scott Thomas, Sarah, Erin M. Whitaker, and Daniel R. Yorgason. “U.S. International Transactions: First 

Quarter of 2010.” Survey of Current Business 90, no. 7 (2010): 54–61. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/07%20July/0710_itaq-text.pdf. 

Scott, Sarah P. “U.S. International Transactions: Third Quarter of 2010.” Survey of Current Business 91, 

no. 1 (2011): 30–37. http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/01January/0111_itaq-text.pdf. 

Secretaría de Gobernación. Secretaría de Economía. Diario Oficial de la Federación (Mexico’s Federal 

Register), August 18, 2010. http://dof.gob.mx/index.php?year=2010&month=08&day=18. 

Trade Reports International Group. “Haiti Trade Bill Moving.” Washington Trade Daily, March 10, 2010. 

Transatlantic Economic Council. “Joint Statement,” December 17, 2010. 

Tudor, Alison. “Japan Shifts Course in Halting Postal Sale.” Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Memorandum for Directors: Field Operations on TBT-10-006 

Amendments under the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010 (HELP Act) for Certain 

Apparel and Other Articles,” November 10, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Meets Japanese Minister 

Hirotaka Akamatsu,” October 9, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). “Bovine 

Spongiform Encephalopathy,” November 12, 2010. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/index.shtml. 
Biblio-7 

———. “USDA Place Import Restrictions on Beef from Japan due to Finding of Foot-and-Mouth 

Disease,” May 28, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS). “Appendix Table 13: Index 

of Selected Cotton Price Quotation Offerings.” In Cotton Outlook (accessed June 6, 2011). 

———. “Japan: Issues and Analysis.” Briefing Rooms, June 23, 2010. 

———. “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,” March 2011. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). FAS Online Database 

(accessed various dates). 

———. GAIN Report: Big Moves to Self-Sufficiency. GAIN Report No. RS1020. Moscow: FAS, April 6, 

2010. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Poultry%20and%20Products%20Semi

-annual_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_4-16-2010.pdf. 

———. GAIN Report: Conclusion of Taiwan 2009 CSQ Rice Quota Tenders. GAIN Report No. 

TW9065. Taipei: FAS, December 17, 2009. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Conclusion%20of%20Taiwan%20200

9%20CSQ%20Rice%20Quota%20Tenders_Taipei_Taiwan_12-17-2009.pdf. 

———. GAIN Report: Conclusion of the 2010 Rice CSQ Tenders. GAIN Report No. TW11001. Taipei: 

FAS, January 3, 2011. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Conclusion%20of%20the%202010%2

0Rice%20CSQ%20Tenders%20%28Summary%20Tables%20included%29_Taipei_Taiwan_1-3-

2011.pdf. 

———. GAIN Report, India: Cotton and Products Annual. GAIN Report No. IN1029. New Delhi: FAS, 

April 12, 2010. 

———. GAIN Report, India: Cotton Update, January 2011. GAIN Report No. IN1101. New Delhi: FAS, 

January 7, 2011. 

———. GAIN Report, India: Exports of Cotton Allowed under License. GAIN Report No. IN1049. New 

Delhi: FAS, June 4, 2010. 

———. GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN Report No. IN1011. New Delhi: FAS, 

February 17, 2010. 

———. GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN Report No. IN1117. New Delhi: FAS, 

February 23, 2011. 

———. GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Update, May 2010. GAIN Report No. IN1036. New Delhi: 

FAS, April 30, 2010. 

———. GAIN Report, India: Oilseeds and Products Update, February 2011. GAIN Report No. IN1119. 

New Delhi: FAS, March 7, 2011. 
Biblio-8 

———. GAIN Report: GOR Resolution No 306 Establishes TRQ Reallocation. GAIN Report No. 

RS1025. Moscow: FAS, May 11, 2010.

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/GOR%20Resolution%20No%20306

%20Establishes%20TRQ%20Reallocation%20_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_5-11-2010.pdf. 

———. GAIN Report: Russia Announces 2011 TRQ Quantities. GAIN Report no. RS1078. Moscow: 

FAS, December 27, 2010. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Russia%20Announces%202011%20T

RQ%20Quantities_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_12-27-2010.pdf. 

———. GAIN Report: Russia Resumes Imports of U.S. Poultry. GAIN Report no. RS1052. Moscow: 

FAS, September 21, 2010. 

———. “Notice to Program Participants of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program 

from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.” News release FAS-PR-0063-11, April 4, 

2011. 

———. “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program.” Fact sheet, March 14, 2010, 1. 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/TAAfactsheet.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “Table 7.2: Business, 

Professional, and Technical Services, 2009.” In U.S. International Services: Cross-Border Trade 

in 2009 and Services Supplied through Affiliate in 2008, October 2010. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/10%20October/1010_services_tables.pdf. 

———. “Table 3a: Private Services Transactions.” U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 

16, 2011. http://www.bea.gov/international/bp_web/. 

———. “Table 12: U.S. International Transactions, by Area.” U.S. International Transactions Accounts 

Data, March 16, 2011. http://www.bea.gov/international/bp_web/. 

———. “U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2010.” News release BEA 11-10, 

March 16, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Economic Development Administration (EDA). 

“Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity: Community Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Program,” n.d. http://www.eda.gov/PDF/CommunityTAAFFO-FINAL.pdf (accessed June 1, 

2011).

———. Annual Report to Congress on the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program. Washington, 

DC: EDA, December 15, 2010. 

http://www.eda.gov/PDF/FY%202010%20TAAF%20Annual%20Report.pdf. 

———. “Community Trade Adjustment Assistance: Program Overview,” n.d. 

http://www.eda.gov/PDF/CTAA%201-pager.pdf (accessed June 1, 2011). 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “U.S. Imports under 

Trade Preference Programs.” http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/agoa-cbtpa/catv0.htm (accessed February 

2011). 
Biblio-9 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). U.S. Commercial Service. “Doing Business in Russia: 2010 

Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies,” 2010. 

http://www.buyusainfo.net/docs/x_2182227.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). “U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis Announces Labor 

Consultations with Guatemala under CAFTA-DR Agreement.” News release, July 30, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and 

Labor Affairs (OTLA). “Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation.” 

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/nao/main.htm (accessed March 25, 2011). 

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment & Training Administration (ETA). “Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Petition Process,” February 14, 2011. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/petitions.cfm. 

———. Trade Adjustment Assistance for 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). “2011 Investment Climate Statement: Guatemala,” March 2011. 

———. “Annex 2: Transatlantic Economic Council; Sector Specific Statements,” December 17, 2010. 

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/153297.htm. 

———. “First Director-General Level U.S.-Japan Dialogue on the Internet Economy,” November 1, 

2010. 

———. “Joint Declaration of the Transatlantic Economic Council: Product-Specific Technical 

Collaboration between the U.S. Department of Energy’s Appliances and Commercial Equipment 

Standards Program and the European Commission’s Ecodesign Regulatory Program for EnergyRelated Products,” December 17, 2010. 

———. “Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of Health and Human 

Services and the European Commission on Cooperation Surrounding Health Related Information 

and Communication Technologies,” December 17, 2010. 

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada.” 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3740.htm (accessed March 25, 2011). 

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican States.” 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3742.htm (accessed March 25, 2011). 

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States of America.” 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3741.htm (accessed March 25, 2011). 

———. “Open Skies Agreement,” June 28, 2010. 

———. “Transatlantic Innovation Action Partnership Work Plan,” December 17, 2010. 

———. “U.S.-Japan Dialogue to Promote Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Job Creation,” February 25, 

2011. 
Biblio-10 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. “Background Note: 

Russia,” June 14, 2010. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. “Background Note: 

Canada,” September 1, 2010. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Secretary of State. “Russia and the WTO: Report on Trilateral 

Meetings in Washington, D.C., March 15–17, 2010 (Washington DC 031479),” March 30, 2010. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy in Canada. “Canadian Copyright Reform Legislation 

Based on Bill C61 Introduced (Ottawa 000223),” June 3, 2010. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy in Malaysia. “Malaysia Determined to Join TPP 

Negotiations (Kuala Lumpur 000431),” June 10, 2010. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy in Russia. “Russia and OECD Accession (Moscow 

000501),” March 11, 2010. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Mission in Switzerland. “October 15, 2009 Informal 

Consultations on the WTO Accessions of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus on the Implementation 

of their Customs Union (Geneva 001001),” November 9, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. “U.S. Cross-Border Trucking Effort Emphasizes Safety and 

Efficiency.” Press release DOT 01-11, January 6, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Treasury. “Second Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue Joint 

U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet.” Press release, May 25, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). “EPA and European Chemicals Agency Sign 

Agreement to Enhance Chemical Safety.” News release, December 17, 2010. 

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. “Rangel, Camp, Levin, Brady Urge 

Administration to Maintain Pressure on Taiwan to Fix Beef.” Press release, January 20, 2010. 

U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). 2010 U.S. IPEC Annual Report on 

Intellectual Property Enforcement. Washington, DC: IPEC, February 2011. 

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 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, 2010. 

———. Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China. USITC Publication 4085. 

Washington, DC: 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. 

———. 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. 
Biblio-11 

———. Earned Import Allowance Program: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Program for Certain 

Apparel from the Dominican Republic. USITC Publication 4175. Washington, DC: USITC July 

2010. 

———. Global Beef Trade: Effects of Animal Health, Sanitary, Food Safety, and Other Measures on U.S. 

Beef Exports. USITC Publication 4033. Washington, DC: USITC, 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 (DataWeb). http://dataweb.usitc.gov (accessed February 

2011). 

———. An Overview and Examination of the Indian Services Sector. USITC Publication No. ID-27. 

Washington, DC: USITC, 2010. 

———. 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: Operations 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. 

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2008 Comprehensive Report on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy 

toward Sub-Saharan Africa and Implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. 

Washington, DC: USTR, 2008. 

———. 2009 Special 301 Report, Washington, DC: USTR, 2009. 

———. 2010 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, 2010. 

———. 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the 

Trade Agreements Program. Washington, DC: USTR, March 1, 2010. 

———. 2010 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance. Washington, DC: USTR, 2010. 

———. 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 

2011. 

———. 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Washington, DC: USTR, 2011. 

———. 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report of the President of the United States. 

Washington, DC: USTR, March 2011. 

———. “Ambassador Kirk Meets Japanese Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu.” Press release, October 8, 2009. 
Biblio-12 

———. “21st U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.” Fact sheet, December 15, 2010. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2010/21st-us-china-joint-commissioncommerce-and-trade. 

———. “Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement to Promote U.S. 

and Regional Jobs through Textile and Apparel Sector.” Press release, March 2, 2011. 

———. “Fighting Unfair Trade Practices, Winning at the WTO: Key Findings against European 

Subsidies to Airbus.” Fact sheet, June 30, 2010. 

———. Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution to the Cotton Dispute in the World Trade 

Organization. WT/DS267, June 25, 2010. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1996. 

———. “Japan.” http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/japan-korea-apec/japan (accessed March 30, 

2011). 

———. “Joint Statement by Ambassador Ron Kirk on the Annex on Forest Sector Governance of the 

United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA).” Press release, July 30, 2010. 

———. “Joint Statement from the January 10, 2011 Meeting of the NAFTA Free Trade Commission 

(FTC), in Mexico City, Mexico.” Press release, January 10, 2011. 

———. “Joint Statement from the Meeting of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 

Free Trade Commission.” Press release, February 23, 2011. 

———. “Joint Statement from USTR, USDA on Taiwan’s Actions to Unjustifiably Restrict U.S. Beef 

Imports in Violation of Our Bilateral Agreement.” Press release, January 5, 2010. 

———. “Joint Statement on the 25th Anniversary of the United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement.” 

Press release, October 19, 2010. 

———. “Joint Statement Regarding the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum.” Press release, September 21, 

2010. 

———. “Keeping Markets Open: Success in Reducing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Barriers to American 

Exports.” Fact sheet, 2011. 

———. “Kirk Comments on Changes to Japan’s Cash-for-Clunkers Program.” Press release, January 19, 

2010. 

———. “Kirk Comments on U.S.-Canada Procurement Agreement.” Press release, February 5, 2010. 

———. “Kirk Comments on U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.” Press release, June 26, 2010.” 

———. “Korea.” 2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: 

USTR, 2011. 

———. “Letter to Minister for Trade Jong-Hoon Kim from Ambassador Ronald Kirk,” February 10, 

2011. 
Biblio-13 

———. “Letter to the Honorable Edgar Alfredo Rodriguez, Minister of Labor and Social Protection, 

Government of Guatemala,” July 30, 2010. 

———. “Making NAFTA Work for U.S. Small-and Medium-Sized Business.” Fact sheet, January 10, 

2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/making-nafta-work-us-smalland-medium-sized-business. 

———. “Opportunities for Small-and Medium-Sized Enterprises in North America.” 

http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2478 (accessed June 7, 2011). 

———. “Positive Outcome from Fourth Round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations.” Press release, 

December 10, 2010. 

———. “Remarks by Ambassador Ron Kirk.” Remarks by Ambassador Ron Kirk on Enforcement at 

Allegheny Technologies, Washington, Pennsylvania, July 30, 2010. 

———. Results of the 2009 GSP Annual Review. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2016 (accessed July 

20, 2011). 

———. “Statement from Ambassador Ron Kirk Regarding the Announcement of Additional Tariffs 

Related to the Cross-Border Mexican Trucking Dispute.” Press release, August 16, 2010. 

———. “Statement from USTR Spokesman Sean Spicer on Softwood Lumber Agreement between 

Canada & United States.” Press release, January 16, 2008. 

———. “Statement from USTR Schwab on the Issuing of the Korea Beef Protocol.” Press release, June 

25, 2008. 

———. “Strong Sixth Round Progress Propels TPP Negotiations Forward.” Press release, April 1, 2011. 

———. “Tribunal Finds Canada Failed to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press 

release, November 28, 2009. 

———. “Tribunal Orders Canada to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press release, 

February 9, 2009. 

———. “United States Achieves Landmark Victory in WTO Airbus Case.” Press release, June 30, 2010. 

———. “United States Files Two WTO Cases against China.” Press release, September 15, 2010. 

———. “United States Imposes Tariffs on Softwood Lumber from Four Canadian Provinces due to 

Canada's Failure to Comply with the Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press release, April 7, 2009. 

———. “United States Prevails in WTO Countervailing Duty Dispute with China.” Press release, 

October 22, 2010. 

———. “United States Prevails in WTO Section 421 Safeguard Dispute with China.” Press release, 

December 13, 2010. 
Biblio-14 

———. “United States Requests Arbitration with Canada under Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press 

release, January 18, 2011. 

———. “United States Requests Consultations with Canada under Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press 

release, October 8, 2010. 

———. “United States Requests Dispute Settlement Panel in Tuna Dolphin NAFTA Choice of Forum 

Dispute.” Press release, September 24, 2010. 

———. “United States Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Consultations on China’s Subsidies for Wind 

Power Equipment Manufacturers.” Press release, December 22, 2010. 

———. “United States Requests WTO Panel over Philippine Excise Taxes.” Press release, March 26, 

2010. 

———. “United States Wins Softwood Lumber Arbitration.” Press release, January 21, 2011. 

———. “United States Wins WTO Dispute with EU on High-Tech Products.” Press release, August 16, 

2010. 

———. “United States, European Union Raise Shared Concerns on Japan Post.” Press release, May 

2010. 

———. “United States.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative.” Press release, February 2011. 

———. “United States-India Trade Policy Forum: Framework for Cooperation on Trade and 

Investment,” March 17, 2010. 

———. “U.S. and China Agree on Reopening Chinese Pork Market to U.S.” Press release, March 18, 

2010. 

———. “U.S., Brazil Agree on a Memorandum of Understanding As Part of Path Forward toward 

Resolution of Cotton Dispute.” Press release, April 20, 2010. 

———. “U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute.” Press release, June 17, 

2010. 

———. “U.S.-Canada Joint Statement on Government Procurement.” Press release, February 5, 2010. 

———. “USDA, USTR Applaud Agreement by Congressional Appropriators on Poultry Imports from 

China.” Press release, September 25, 2009. 

———. “U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum Facts,” September 21, 2010. 

———. “U.S. Responds to Canadian Failure to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press 

release, April 3, 2009. 

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara Meet during 

APEC Forum Leaders’ Meeting.” Press release, November 13, 2010. 
Biblio-15 

———. “USTR Confirms Korea’s Announcement.” Press release, June 21, 2008. 

———. “USTR Kirk Announces Labor Rights Trade Enforcement Case against Guatemala.” Press 

release, July 30, 2010. 

———. “USTR Releases 2010 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights and 2010 Special 301 

Report.” Press release, April 30, 2010. 

———. “USTR Ron Kirk Comments on Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks.” Press release, June 18, 2010. 

———. “USTR Ron Kirk Joined by Apparel Industry Leaders as USTR Announces Plus One for Haiti 

Program at MAGIC Marketplace in Las Vegas, Nevada.” Press release, February 10, 2010. 

———. “Weekly Trade Spotlight: Montana and Softwood Lumber,” August 24, 2009.

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog/weekly-trade-spotlight-montana-and-softwoodlumber. 

Weinber, Douglas B., and Erin M. Whitaker. “U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 

2009.” Survey of Current Business 90, no. 4 (2010): 26–35. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/04%20April/0410_itaq-text.pdf. 

White House. “Fact Sheet on U.S.-Japan Initiatives,” November 13, 2010. 

White House. Office of the Press Secretary. “Increasing U.S. Auto Exports and Growing U.S. Auto Jobs 

through the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement.” Fact sheet, December 3, 2010. 

———. “Joint Statement by the Presidents of the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 

Russia’s Accession to the WTO.” Press release, June 24, 2010. 

———. “Remarks by President Obama and President Lee Myung-Bak of the Republic of Korea after 

Bilateral Meeting.” Press release, June 26, 2010. 

———. “Remarks by President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia after Bilateral Meeting in 

Yokohama, Japan.” Press release, November 13, 2010. 

———. “Remarks by the President at the Announcement of a U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.” Press 

release, December 4, 2010. 

———. “Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement.” Press release, 

December 3, 2010. 

———. “U.S.-Russia Relations: ‘Reset’ Fact Sheet.” Press release, June 24, 2010. 

———. “The United States Government’s Haiti Earthquake Response.” Press release, June 25, 2010. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/united-states-governments-haiti-earthquakeresponse. 

World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). “Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Status of Members,” 

May 2010. http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/bse/list-ofbse-risk-status/#c1. 
Biblio-16 

———. “Resolution No. XXIV: Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Status of 

Member Countries,” May 22, 2007. http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D4111.PDF. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS316, European Communities—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS375, European Communities and Its Member States—Tariff Treatment 

of Certain Information Technology Products.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds375_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS379, United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 

Duties on Certain Products from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds379_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS381, United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing 

and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “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. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds382_e.htm

(accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS383, United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Thailand.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds383_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS384, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) 

Requirements.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS386, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements.” 

Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds386_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS392, United States—Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry 

from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds392_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS394, China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw 

Materials.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds394_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “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. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds399_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS402, United States—Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures 

Involving Products from Korea.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds402_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 
Biblio-17 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS403, Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits.” Online summary prepared 

by the WTO Secretariat. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds403_e.htm

(accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS404, United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from 

Viet Nam.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds404_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS406, United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of 

Clove Cigarettes.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds406_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS413, China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services.” 

Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds413_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “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. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds414_e.htm (accessed 

April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS419, China—Measures Concerning Wind Power Equipment.” Online 

summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds419_e.htm (accessed April 25, 2011). 

———. “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes; Chronological List of Disputes Cases.” 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm (accessed various dates). 

———. “Report of the Committee on Government Procurement.” GPA(10)/106, December 9, 2010. 

———. “Report of the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft.” WT(10)/L/805, December 6, 2010. 

———. “Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body: Report by the Chairman; Introduction.” 

JOB(08)/81, July 18, 2008. 

———. “The Process: Stages in a Typical WTO Dispute Settlement Case.” 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c6s1p1_e.htm (accessed 

March 8, 2011). 

———. “Trade Policy Review: Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu.” 

WT/TPR/S/232, July, 2010. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp332_e.htm. 

———. “Trade Topics: Goods Schedules.” Members’ Commitments. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/schedules_e/goods_schedules_e.htm (accessed February 24, 

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. 
Biblio-18 

———. “United States: Subsidies on Upland Cotton, Joint Communication from Brazil and the United 

States.” WT/DS267/45, August 31, 2010. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information 

Technology Products. “Meeting of 11 November 2010.” JOB/IT/1, October 29, 2010. 

———. “Status of Implementation: Note by the Secretariat; Revision.” G/IT/1/Rev.43, October 28, 2010. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Government Procurement. “Minutes of the Formal 

Meeting of 9 December 2010.” GPA/M/42, March 1, 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.” TN/TE/19, March 22, 2010. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council. “Annual Report (2010).” WT/GC/131, February 8, 

2011. 

———. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 14 December 2010.” 

WT/GC/M/129, February 16, 2011. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Negotiating Group on Market Access. “Market Access for Nonagricultural Products: Transparency.” Communication from the WTO Secretariat. JOB/MA/57, 

November 9, 2010. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Trade Negotiations Committee. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level 

of Head of Delegation: Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB/TNC/7, February 2, 2011. 

———. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB/TNC/8, 

March 8, 2011. 

———. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB/TNC/3, 

June 11, 2010. 

———. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB/TNC/4, 

July 27, 2010. 

———. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB/TNC/5, 

October 19, 2010. 

———. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB/TNC/6, 

November 30, 2010. 

———. “Statement by the Chairman.” JOB/TNC/1, March 22, 2010. 

———. “Statement by the Chairman.” JOB/TNC/2, March 26, 2010. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Trade Policy Review Body. “Trade Policy Review: Report by 

European Communities.” WT/TPR/G/214, March 2, 2009. 
APPENDIX TABLES 

A-3

 

TABLE A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 83,272 69,132 79,626 15.2

1 Beverages and tobacco 5,168 4,710 5,023 6.7

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 75,517 61,050 79,896 30.9

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 75,841 54,358 79,801 46.8

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 4,317 3,192 4,308 35.0

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 174,111 153,242 180,906 18.1

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 107,717 80,401 99,723 24.0

7 Machinery and transport equipment 477,111 367,271 424,353 15.5

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 111,102 98,789 108,960 10.3

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 55,666 44,601 59,534 33.5

 Total 1,169,821 936,745 1,122,131 19.8

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 66,053 61,880 70,252 13.5

1 Beverages and tobacco 16,651 15,310 16,155 5.5

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 36,937 22,350 30,268 35.4

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 468,444 257,315 336,134 30.6

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 5,301 3,746 4,349 16.1

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 187,713 156,279 181,307 16.0

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 230,697 151,450 193,941 28.1

7 Machinery and transport equipment 718,344 567,502 710,793 25.2

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 288,917 246,933 285,669 15.7

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 71,425 66,397 69,742 5.0

 Total 2,090,483 1,549,163 1,898,610 22.6

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-4 

TABLE A.2 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2008–10

Service industry 2008 2009 2010

% change,

2009–10

Millions of $

Business, professional, and technical services 115,229 116,629 128,297 10.0

Travel 109,976 93,917 103,094 9.8

Royalties and license fees 93,920 89,791 95,807 6.7

Financial services 60,798 55,446 58,003 4.6

Passenger fares 31,404 26,424 31,295 18.4

Education 17,938 19,911 21,690 8.9

Port services 21,561 18,159 20,189 11.2

Freight 22,153 17,247 19,637 13.9

Insurance services 13,538 14,651 14,558 –0.6

Telecommunications 9,425 9,284 10,201 9.9

Other 22,004 22,410 23,821 6.3

 Total 517,946 483,869 526,592 8.8

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 16, 2011, table 3a.

Note: Data for 2010 are preliminary.
A-5 

TABLE A.3 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2008–10

Service industry 2008 2009 2010

% change,

2009–10

Millions of $

Business, professional, and technical services 82,537 81,995 89,514 9.2

Travel 79,726 73,230 74,646 1.9

Insurance services 56,107 55,233 56,454 2.2

Freight 42,046 29,341 37,657 28.3

Royalties and license fees 25,781 25,230 29,227 15.8

Passenger fares 32,563 25,980 28,086 8.1

Financial services 20,154 16,454 15,796 –4.0

Port services 11,656 12,245 11,296 –7.8

Telecommunications 7,254 7,048 7,541 7.0

Education 5,173 5,583 5,960 6.8

Other 2,462 2,578 2,455 –4.8

 Total 365,459 334,917 358,632 7.1

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 16, 2011, table 3a.

 Note: Data for 2010 are preliminary.
A-6

TABLE A.4 Antidumping cases active in 2010, by USITC investigation number

USITC 

investigation 

number Product

Country of 

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 A c A (

d

) (

d

) (

d

) 

731-TA-1156 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Indonesia 3/31/2009 A A A A 4/26/2010

731-TA-1157 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Taiwan 3/31/2009 A A A A 4/26/2010

731-TA-1158 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Vietnam 3/31/2009 A A A A 4/26/2010

731-TA-1159 Oil country tubular goods China 4/8/2009 A A A A 5/14/2010

731-TA-1160 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand China 5/27/2009 A A A A 6/22/2010

731-TA-1161 Steel grating China 5/29/2009 A A A A 7/13/2010

731-TA-1162 Wire decking China 6/5/2009 A A A N 7/26/2010

731-TA-1163 Woven electric blankets China 6/30/2009 A A A A 8/10/2010

731-TA-1164 Narrow woven ribbons China 7/9/2009 A A A A 9/25/2010

731-TA-1165 Narrow woven ribbons Taiwan 7/9/2009 A A A A 9/25/2010

731-TA-1166 Magnesia carbon bricks China 7/29/2009 A A A A 9/8/2010

731-TA-1167 Magnesia carbon bricks Mexico 7/29/2009 A A A A 9/8/2010

731-TA-1168 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe China 9/16/2009 A A A A 11/4/2010

731-TA-1169 Coated paper China 9/23/2009 A A A A 11/10/2010

731-TA-1170 Coated paper Indonesia 9/23/2009 A A A A 11/10/2010

731-TA-1173 Phosphate salts China 9/24/2009 (

e

) A A (

e

) 7/15/2010

731-TA-1174 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube China 9/30/2009 A A A A 11/15/2010

731-TA-1175 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Mexico 9/30/2009 A A A A 11/15/2010

731-TA-1176 Drill pipe China 12/31/2009 A A (

d

) (

d

) (

d

) 

731-TA-1177 Aluminum extrusions China 3/31/2010 A A (

d

) (

d

) (

d

) 

731-TA-1178 Glyphosate China 3/31/2010 (

f

) (

g

) (

g

) (

g

) 4/29/2010

731-TA-1179 Multilayered wood flooring China 10/21/2010 A (

d

) (

d

) (

d

) (

d

) 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

 a

International Trade Administration (ITA), USDOC.

 b

For 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.

 c

On 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.

 d

Pending as of December 31, 2010.

 e

USITC preliminary affirmative with respect to monopotassium phosphate, dipotassium phosphate, and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate. USITC preliminary negative with 

respect to sodium tripolyphosphate. USITC final affirmative with respect to anhydrous dipotassium phosphate and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate. USITC final negative 

with respect to anhydrous monopotassium phosphate.

 f

Petition withdrawn.

 g

Not applicable.
A-7 

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010

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 warm water shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004

Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products July 6, 1999

Stainless steel bar Feb. 21, 1995

Silicomanganese Dec. 22, 1994

Circular welded non alloy 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 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

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
A-8 

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Country Commodity

Effective date of 

original action

China–Continued 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

Sparklers June 18, 1991

Silicon metal June 10, 1991

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
A-9 

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Country Commodity

Effective date of 

original action

China–Continued 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

Ball bearings May 15, 1989

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

Ball bearings May 15, 1989

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 warm-water 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

Forged stainless steel flanges Feb. 9, 1994

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

Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999

Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999

Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998

Pasta July 24, 1996
A-10

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Country Commodity

Effective date of 

original action

Italy–Continued 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

Ball bearings May 15, 1989

Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Aug. 24, 1988

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

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film June 5, 1991

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

Carboxymethylcellulose July 11, 2005

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004

Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002

Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999

Fresh tomatoes (suspended) Nov. 1, 1996

Circular welded non alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992
A-11

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Country Commodity

Effective date of 

original action

Moldova Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002

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 Magnesium April 15, 2005

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

Sweden Carboxymethylcellulose July 11, 2005

Taiwan 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

Forged stainless steel flanges Feb. 9, 1994

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 warm-water 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
A-12

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Country Commodity

Effective date of 

original action

Turkey Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube May 30, 2008

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

United Kingdom Ball bearings May 15, 1989

Venezuela Silicomanganese May 23, 2002

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010

Uncovered innerspring units Dec. 11, 2008

Frozen or canned warm-water shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005

Frozen fish fillets Aug. 12, 2003

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
A-13

TABLE A.6 Countervailing duty cases active in 2010, 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-462 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Vietnam 03/31/09 A A A A 04/26/10

701-TA-463 Oil country tubular goods China 04/08/09 A A A A 01/13/10

701-TA-464 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand China 05/27/09 A A A A 06/22/10

701-TA-465 Steel grating China 05/29/09 A A A A 07/13/10

701-TA-466 Wire decking China 06/05/09 A A A N 07/26/10

701-TA-467 Narrow woven ribbons China 07/09/09 A A A A 08/25/10

701-TA-468 Magnesia carbon bricks China 07/29/09 A N A A 09/08/10

701-TA-469 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe China 09/16/09 A A A A 11/04/10

701-TA-470 Coated paper China 09/23/09 A A A A 11/10/10

701-TA-471 Coated paper Indonesia 09/23/09 A A A A 11/10/10

701-TA-473 Phosphate salts China 09/24/09 (

c

) A A (

c

) 07/15/10

701-TA-474 Drill pipe China 12/31/09 A A (

d

) (

d

) (

d

)

701-TA-475 Aluminum extrusions China 03/31/10 A A (

d

) (

d

) (

d

)

701-TA-476 Multilayered wood flooring China 10/21/10 A (

d

) (

d

) (

d

) (

d

)

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

 a

International Trade Administration, USDOC. b

For 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. c

USITC preliminary affirmative with respect to monopotassium phosphate, dipotassium phosphate, and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate. USITC preliminary negative 

with respect to sodium tripolyphosphate. USITC final affirmative with respect to anhydrous dipotassium phosphate and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate. USITC final 

negative with respect to anhydrous monopotassium phosphate.

 dPending as of December 31, 2010.
A-14

TABLE A.7 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2010

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

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products July 6, 1999

Heavy iron construction castings May 15, 1986

China 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

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993
A-15

TABLE A.7 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Country Commodity

Effective date of 

original action

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-16

TABLE A.8 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders completed in 2010, by date of 

completion

USITC

investigation 

number Product

Country of

origin

Completion 

datea Action

AA1921-167 Pressure sensitive plastic tape Italy 03/11/10 Continued

731-TA-776 Preserved mushrooms Chile 04/09/10 Continued

731-TA-777 Preserved mushrooms China 04/09/10 Continued

731-TA-778 Preserved mushrooms India 04/09/10 Continued

731-TA-779 Preserved mushrooms Indonesia 04/09/10 Continued

731-TA-1059 Hand trucks China 04/15/10 Continued

731-TA-130 Chloropicrin China 04/19/10 Continued

731-TA-1070A Crepe paper China 04/30/10 Continued

701-TA-437 Carbazole violet pigment 23 India 05/10/10 Continued

731-TA-1060 Carbazole violet pigment 23 China 05/10/10 Continued

731-TA-1061 Carbazole violet pigment 23 India 05/10/10 Continued

731-TA-770 Stainless steel wire rod Italy 05/28/10 Continued

731-TA-771 Stainless steel wire rod Japan 05/28/10 Continued

731-TA-772 Stainless steel wire rod Korea 05/28/10 Continued

731-TA-773 Stainless steel wire rod Spain 05/28/10 Continued

731-TA-775 Stainless steel wire rod Taiwan 05/28/10 Continued

731-TA-1047 Ironing tables China 06/08/10 Continued

731-TA-149 Barium chloride China 06/09/10 Continued

731-TA-1043 Polyethylene retail carrier bags China 06/22/10 Continued

731-TA-1044 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Malaysia 06/22/10 Continued

731-TA-1045 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Thailand 06/22/10 Continued

731-TA-44 Sorbitol France 07/01/10 Revoked

731-TA-1070B Tissue paper China 07/01/10 Continued

731-TA-125 Potassium permanganate China 09/30/10 Continued

731-TA-1082 Chlorinated isocyanurates China 09/30/10 Continued

731-TA-1083 Chlorinated isocyanurates Spain 09/30/10 Continued

701-TA-249 Heavy iron construction castings Brazil 10/27/10 Continued

731-TA-262 Heavy and light iron construction castings Brazil 10/27/10 Continued

731-TA-263 Heavy iron construction castings Canada 10/27/10 Continued

731-TA-265 Heavy and light iron construction castings China 10/27/10 Continued

731-TA-1058 Wooden bedroom furniture China 12/14/10 Continued

731-TA-282 Petroleum wax candles China 12/16/10 Continued

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

 a

The completion date shown is the date of the USITC notification of USDOC.
A-17

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Completed:

337-TA-413 Certain Rare-Earth Magnets and 

Magnetic Materials and Articles 

Containing the Same

Taiwan, China One related (ancillary) advisory proceeding; terminated based 

on denial of advisory opinion.

337-TA-501 Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit 

Devices and Products Containing Same

Malaysia Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-564 Certain Voltage Regulators, Components 

Thereof and Products Containing Same

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; terminated 

based on finding a violation of limited exclusion order.

337-TA-602 Certain GPS Devices and Products 

Containing Same

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) advisory proceeding; terminated based 

on no violation.

337-TA-605 Certain Semiconductor Chips with 

Minimized Chip Package Size and 

Products Containing Same

Canada, Switzerland One related (ancillary) bond forfeiture proceeding; terminated 

based on denial of bond forfeiture.

337-TA-617 Certain Digital Televisions and Certain 

Products Containing Same and Methods 

of Using Same

Taiwan, Hong Kong, 

China

One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; terminated 

based on withdrawal of complaint.

337-TA-631 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices 

and Products Containing the Same

Japan One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; terminated 

based on settlement agreement.

337-TA-632 Certain Refrigerators and Components 

Thereof

Korea, Mexico Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-641 Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines 

Components

Japan Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-644 Certain Composite Wear Components 

and Products Containing Same

India, Italy One related (ancillary) sanctions proceeding; terminated with 

award of sanctions

337-TA-648 Certain Semiconductor Integrated 

Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization 

and Products Containing Same

Taiwan, Japan, 

Switzerland, China, 

Netherlands

Terminated as moot following CAFC remand based on patent 

expiration.

337-TA-650 Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and 

Components Thereof and Products 

Containing Same

Taiwan, China Issued limited and general exclusion orders and cease and 

desist orders.

337-TA-655 Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, 

Processes for Manufacturing or Relating 

to Same and Certain Products 

Containing Same

China Issued limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
A-18

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Completed–Continued:

337-TA-657 Certain Automotive Multimedia Display 

and Navigation Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-661 Certain Semiconductor Chips Having 

Synchronous Dynamic Random Access 

Memory Controllers and Products 

Containing Same

Taiwan, Hong Kong Issued limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

337-TA-663 Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless 

Communication Devices Featuring 

Digital Cameras, and Components 

Thereof

Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-664 Certain Flash Memory Chips and 

Products Containing the Same

Korea, Taiwan, 

China, Malaysia, 

Hong Kong, Canada, 

Japan, Sweden

Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-665 Certain Semiconductor Integrated 

Circuits and Products Containing Same

Cayman Islands, 

Singapore

Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-666 Certain Code Cathode Fluorescent Lamp 

(“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products 

Containing the Same

Taiwan, Korea Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-667b Certain Electronic Devices, Including 

Handheld Wireless Communications 

Devices 

Finland, Canada, 

Taiwan, Japan

Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-668 Certain Non-Shellfish Derived 

Glucosamine and Products Containing 

Same

China Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-669 Certain Optoelectronic Devices, 

Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same

No foreign 

respondents

Issued limited exclusion order and cease and desist order.

337-TA-670 Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support 

Systems and Components Thereof

Canada Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-671 Certain Digital Cameras No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a settlement agreement.
A-19

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Completed–Continued:

337-TA-672 Certain Electronic Devices Having Image 

Capture or Display Functionality and 

Components Thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-673 Certain Electronic Devices Including 

Handheld Wireless Communications 

Devices (Consolidated with Inv. No. 667) 

Korea, Finland, 

Taiwan, Japan, 

Canada

Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-677 Certain Course Management System 

Software Products

Canada Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-678 Certain Energy Drink Products No foreign 

respondents

Issued general exclusion order.

337-TA-679 Certain Products Advertised as 

Containing Creatine Ethyl Ester

No foreign 

respondents

Issued limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

337-TA-680 Certain Machine Vision Software, 

Machine Vision Systems, and Products 

Containing Same

Germany, Japan Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-684 Certain Articulated Coordinated 

Measuring Arms and Components 

Thereof

Belgium, Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-686 Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers 

and Components Thereof and Welding 

Wire

China, Sweden, 

Korea, Italy

Terminated based on finding of no violation.

337-TA-688 Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and 

Components Thereof

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-689 Certain Dual Access Locks and Products 

Containing Same

China, Taiwan, 

Japan, Hong Kong, 

England, Germany

Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-693 Certain Foldable Stools China Terminated based on withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-696 Certain Restraining Systems for 

Transport Containers, Components 

Thereof, and Methods of Using Same

China Terminated based on a consent order.

337-TA-697 Certain Authentication Systems, 

Including Software and Handheld 

Electronic Devices

Canada Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-698 Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products 

Containing the Same

Taiwan, Hong Kong Terminated based on a settlement agreement.
A-20

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Completed–Continued:

337-TA-699 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices 

and Products Containing the Same

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-702 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules 

and Products Containing the Same, and 

Methods for Making the Same

Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-705 Certain Notebook Computer Products 

and Components Thereof

Taiwan Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-706 Certain Wireless Communications 

System Server Software, Wireless 

Handheld Devices and Battery Packs

Canada Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-707 Certain Dynamic Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors and Products 

Containing Same, Including Memory 

Modules

Japan, Taiwan, 

China, Malaysia

Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-708 Certain Stringed Musical Instruments 

and Components Thereof (II)

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-711 Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with 

Printheads and Components Thereof

Taiwain, Hong Kong, 

China

Terminated based on withdrawal of complaint.

337-TA-715 Certain Game Controllers United Kingdom Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-719 Certain Lighting Products No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a settlement agreement and consent 

order.

337-TA-725 Certain Caskets Mexico Issued a limited exclusion order.

337-TA-727 Certain Underground Cable and Pipe 

Locators

Germany, China Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

337-TA-729 Certain Semiconductor Products Made 

by Advanced Lithography Techniques 

and Products Containing Same

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a settlement agreement.

Pending:

337-TA-487 Certain Agricultural Vehicles and 

Components Thereof 

China, Netherlands, 

France, Germany, 

and 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; pending before 

the Commission.
A-21

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Pending–Continued:

337-TA-565 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components 

Thereof

Hong Kong, China, 

Germany Korea

One related (ancillary) modification proceeding; pending 

before the Commission.

337-TA-567 Certain Foam Footwear Canada One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; pending before 

the Commission.

337-TA-568 Certain Products and Pharmaceutical 

Compositions Containing Recombinant 

Human Erythropoietin

Switzerland, Germany One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; pending before 

the Commission.

337-TA-587 Connecting Devices For Use With 

Modular Compressed Air Conditioning 

Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and 

Lubricators ("FRL'S") That Are Part of 

Larger Pneumatic Systems and The FRL 

Units They Connect

Japan, China One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; pending before 

the Commission.

337-TA-602 GPS Devices and Products Containing 

Same

Taiwan Two related (ancillary) enforcement and modification 

proceedings; pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-617 Certain Digital Televisions and Certain 

Products Containing Same and Methods 

of Using Same

Taiwan, Hong Kong, 

China

One related (ancillary) bond forfeiture proceedings; pending 

before the ALJ.

337-TA-683 MLC Flash Memory Devices and 

Products Containing Same

Korea, Taiwan, Hong 

Kong, Canada, Japan

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-685 Certain Flash Memory and Products 

Containing Same

Japan, Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-687 Certain Video Displays, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same

Japan Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-690 Certain Printing and Imaging Devices 

and Components Thereof

Japan Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-691 Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and 

Components Thereof

China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-692 Certain Ceramic Capacitors and 

Products Containing Same

Korea Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-694 Certain Multimedia Display and 

Navigation Devices and Systems, 

Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same

Taiwan, China Pending before the Commission.
A-22

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Pending–Continued:

337-TA-695 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages 

and Products Containing the Same

China Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-700 Certain MEMS Devices and Products 

Containing Same

China, Japan Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-701 Certain Electronic Devices, Including 

Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, 

and Computers

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-703 Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless 

Communication Devices Featuring 

Digital Cameras, and Components 

Thereof

Canada Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-704 Certain Mobile Communications and 

Computer Devices and Components 

Thereof

Finland Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-709 Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, 

and Products Containing Same Including 

Televisions, Media Players, and 

Cameras

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-710 Certain Personal Data and Mobile 

Communications Devices and Related 

Software

Taiwan, Finland Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-712 Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and 

Components Thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-713 Certain Display Devices, Including Digital 

Televisions and Monitors

Hong Kong, Taiwan, 

China

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-714 Certain Electronic Devices With MultiTouch Enabled Touchpads and 

Touchscreens

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-716 Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit 

Semiconductor Chips and Products 

Containing Same

Japan, China, 

Malaysia, Singapore, 

Taiwan

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-717 Certain Digital Imaging Devices and 

Related Software

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.
A-23

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Pending–Continued:

337-TA-718 Certain Electronic Paper Towel 

Dispensing Devices and Components 

Thereof

Canada, China, Hong 

Kong, Mexico, 

Taiwan, Turkey

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-720 Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, 

Components Thereof, Associated 

Software, and Products Containing the 

Same

Korea Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-721 Certain Portable Electronic Devices and 

Related Software

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-722 Certain Automotive Vehicles and 

Designs Therefore

China Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-723 Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with 

Printheads and Components Thereof

Taiwan, Hong Kong, 

China

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-724 Certain Electronic Devices with Image 

Processing Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Associated Software

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-726 Certain Electronic Imaging Devices Finland, Canada, 

Taiwan, Korea

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-728 Certain Underground Cable and Pipe 

Locators

China, United 

Kingdom

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-730 Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and 

Components Thereof

Hong Kong, China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-731 Certain Toner Cartridges and 

Components Thereof

Hong Kong, China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-732 Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel 

and Components Thereof

Hong Kong, China, 

Japan

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-733 Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions 

and Components Thereof

Korea Pending before the ALJ

337-TA-734 Certain Adjustable-Height Beds and 

Components Thereof

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-735 Certain Flash Memory Chips and 

Products Containing the Same

Korea, Finland, 

Canada, Taiwan, 

China

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-736 Certain Wind and Solar-Powered Light 

Posts and Street Lamps

Canada Pending before the ALJ.
A-24

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Pending–Continued:

337-TA-737 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices 

and Products Interoperable With the 

Same

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-738 Certain Components for Installation of 

Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU

Japan, Norway, 

United Kingdom

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-739 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters 

and Products Containing Same

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-740 Certain Toner Cartridges and 

Components Thereof

China, Hong Kong, 

Canada, Korea, 

Macao

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-741 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, 

Including Monitors, Televisions, and 

Modules, and Components Thereof 

(consolidated with Inv. No. 337-TA-749)

Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-742 Certain Digital Televisions and 

Components Thereof

Taiwan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-743 Certain Video Game Systems and 

Controllers 

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-744 Certain Mobile Devices, Associated 

Software, and Components Thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

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-747 Certain Products Containing Interactive 

Program Guide and Parental Controls 

Technology

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-748 Certain Data Storage Products and 

Components Thereof

Malaysia Pending before the Commission.

337-TA-749 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, 

Including Monitors, Televisions, and 

Modules, and Components Thereof 

(consolidated with Inv. No. 337-TA-741)

Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ.
A-25

TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2010 and those pending on 

December 31, 2010–Continued

Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission determination

Pending–Continued:

337-TA-750 Certain Mobile Devices and Related 

Software

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-751 Certain Turbomachinery Blades, Engines 

and Components Thereof

United Kingdom Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-752 Certain Gaming and Entertainment 

Consoles, Related Software, and 

Components Thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

 a This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the notice of investigation. "Hong Kong” refers to "Hong Kong, China."

 b Inv. no. 337-TA-667 was consolidated with inv. no. 337-TA-673.
A-26

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2010

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

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 Therefore

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-376 Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and 

Components Thereof

Germany Feb. 1, 2011c

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 Nov. 1, 2011 

Jan. 10, 2012 

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-416 Certain Compact Multipurpose Tools China, Taiwan July 1, 2011 

Oct. 21, 2011 

Oct. 21, 2011 

Oct. 21, 2011

337-TA-424 Certain Cigarettes and Packaging Thereof No foreign respondents Nonpatent
A-27

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Investigation No. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

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-473 Certain Video Game Systems, Accessories, 

and Components Thereof

No foreign respondents Dec. 18, 2015

337-TA-474 Certain Recordable Compact Discs and 

Rewritable Compact Discs

Hong Kong, Taiwan May 23, 2012

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-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-511 Certain Pet Food Treats China Sept. 23, 2011

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-528 Certain Foam Masking Tape Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, 

Canada, France, Germany

May 10, 2011

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
A-28

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Investigation No. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

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 

Jul. 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

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

Jul. 13, 2020 

Nov. 17, 2020 

May 18, 2021 

Jul. 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 Jul. 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
A-29

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2010–Continued

Investigation No. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

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 

Jul. 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

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

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

 

a

This 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.

 

c

Patent term extended pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §154(c).
A-30

TABLE A.11 U.S. imports for consumption and U.S. imports that were either GSP eligible or GSP duty free, by HTS provision, 2010, millions of dollars

HTS No. Description Total imports GSP eligible GSP duty free

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 102,973 11,506 4,696

2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 83,995 2,426 737

7113.11.50 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of silver, n.e.s.o.i., valued over $18 per dozen pieces or parts 1,894 959 598

4011.10.10 New pneumatic radial tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and 

racing cars 5,600 1,017 495

7606.12.30 Aluminum alloy plates, sheets, and strip, of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm, rectangular (including 

square), not clad 1,697 438 398

7202.41.00 Ferrochromium containing more than 3 percent of carbon 597 577 377

7202.30.00 Ferrosilicon manganese 373 249 247

4011.20.10 New pneumatic radial tires, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or trucks 3,073 287 230

2106.90.99 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included 1,443 233 217

7113.19.29 Gold necklaces and neck chains, other than rope or mixed link 610 301 206

7202.21.50 Ferrosilicon containing by weight more than 55 but not more than 80 percent silicon, and not more 

than 3 percent calcium 292 200 198

4015.19.10 Gloves, mittens and mitts, seamless, of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber, other than surgical 

or medical 455 216 187

1701.11.10 Raw sugar not containing added flavoring or coloring 839 471 186

7113.19.50 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal except silver, except necklaces and clasps 3,547 1,496 160

6802.99.00 Monumental or building stone and articles thereof, n.e.s.o.i., of natural stone, n.e.s.o.i. 221 148 146

8708.30.50 Brakes and servo-brakes and parts thereof, for personal and commercial motor vehicles, excluding 

tractors suitable for agricultural use 3,949 243 144

8483.10.30 Camshafts and crankshafts, except those designed for spark-ignition internal combustion piston or 

rotary engines 320 167 137

8708.99.81 Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 5,185 166 136

1704.90.35 Confections ready for consumption 1,112 153 131

2905.11.20 Methanol (methyl alcohol), n.e.s.o.i. 1,302 311 128

 Top 20 items 219,479 21,563 9,754

All other 1,668,526 22,143 12,800

 Total 1,888,005 43,706 22,554

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.

Note: Figures do not include U.S. Virgin Island imports. The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”
A-31

TABLE A.12 U.S. imports for consumption and U.S. imports that were either GSP eligible or GSP duty free, by HTS import categories, 2010, millions of 

dollars

HTS 

Section Description Total imports GSP eligible GSP duty free

I Live animals; animal products 20,544 61 53

II Vegetable products 28,137 928 315

III Animal and vegetable fats, oils, and waxes 4,366 149 142

IV Prepared foodstuffs; beverages, spirits; tobacco 43,137 2,390 1,732

V Mineral products 333,250 14,664 5,464

VI Chemical products 165,473 3,190 1,835

VII Plastics and rubber 56,241 3,341 2,190

VIII Raw hides and skins, leather, furskins; saddlery; handbags 10,734 371 321

IX Wood; charcoal; cork; straw and other plaiting materials 11,986 679 511

X Wood pulp; paper and paperboard 23,739 0 0

XI Textiles and textile articles 95,161 461 285

XII Footwear, headgear, umbrellas; artificial flowers 24,373 21 15

XIII Stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, ceramic and glass articles 14,431 1,442 634

XIV Pearls, precious or semi-precious stones; imitation jewelry 53,588 3,264 1,359

XV Base metals and articles of base metal 94,364 4,228 3,025

XVI Machinery and appliances; electrical equipment 504,537 5,492 2,706

XVII Vehicles, aircraft, vessels, transport equipment 204,987 1,440 1,020

XVIII Optical, photographic, medical, and musical instruments; clocks 63,340 1,053 541

XIX Arms and ammunition; parts and accessories thereof 2,704 65 58

XX Miscellaneous manufactured articles 71,091 467 345

XXI Works of art, collectors' pieces and antiques 6,236 0 0

XXII Special classification provisions 55,586 0 0

 Total 1,888,005 43,706 22,554

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown.
A-32 

TABLE A.13 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA, by source, 2008–10

Source 2008 2009 2010

% change,

2009–10

Thousands of $

Nigeria 35,366,204 17,228,232 25,153,807 46.0

Angola 9,794,965 4,225,139 6,293,944 49.0

Republic of the Congo 2,639,141 1,471,657 1,935,530 31.5

Republic of South Africa 2,427,690 1,642,893 1,902,140 15.8

Chad 2,309,230 1,190,403 1,186,314 –0.3

Gabon 2,143,355 1,210,007 1,124,244 –7.1

Lesotho 338,797 277,046 280,342 1.2

Kenya 252,243 204,982 220,636 7.6

Democratic Republic of 

Congo 65,234 35,652 147,042 312.4

Mauritius 97,291 98,747 117,911 19.4

Cameroon 441,316 96,750 113,469 17.3

Swaziland 125,387 94,718 92,798 –2.0

Malawi 26,680 39,734 47,191 18.8

Mauritania 0 0 26,396 (

a

)

Botswana 15,803 12,362 11,559 –6.5

Ethiopia 9,392 6,723 6,875 2.3

Ghana 31,494 2,303 2,053 –10.9

Tanzania 1,527 1,006 1,850 83.9

Uganda 473 222 345 55.4

Mozambique 129 0 184 (

a

)

Cape Verde 0 0 146 (

a

)

Rwanda 5 63 10 –83.4

Senegal 10,229 1,585 7 –99.6

Namibia 6 0 5 (

a

)

The Gambia 0 0 5 (

a

)

Mali 4 62 4 –94.2

Burkina Faso 0 0 2 (

a

)

Zambia 5 7 0 –94.8

Madagascar 277,051 210,004 0 –100.0

Djibouti 0 17 0 –100.0

Niger 1 3 0 –100.0

Guinea 1 1 0 –100.0

Benin 0 0 0 (

a

)

Burundi 0 0 0 (

a

)

Comoros 0 0 0 (

a

)

Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 (

a

)

Liberia 0 0 0 (

a

)

Sao Tome and Principe 0 0 0 (

a

)

Seychelles 0 0 0 (

a

)

Sierra Leone 0 0 0 (

a

)

Togo 0 0 0 (

a

)

 Total 56,373,651 28,050,318 38,664,807 37.8

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown.

 

a Not applicable.
A-33

TABLE A.14 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under AGOA, by HTS provision, 2008–10

HTS No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 48,518 23,395 33,842 44.7

2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 2,732 1,550 1,518 –2.1

8703.23.00 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity 1,500-3000 cc 1,553 1,310 1,471 12.3

2710.11.25 Naphthas, not motor fuel/blending stock, from petroleum oils/oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 659 261 357 36.7

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 50 87 144 65.9

7202.11.50 Ferromanganese containing by weight more than 4 percent carbon 367 87 142 62.4

6203.42.40 Men's or boys' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not containing 15 percent 

or more down 153 118 123 4.3

6204.62.40 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 257 191 116 –39.2

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. 751 165 97 –41.0

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 162 111 84 –24.2

6205.20.20 Men's or boys' shirts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not certified hand-loomed and folklore product 81 70 77 9.9

6110.30.30 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers, 

n.e.s.o.i. 76 69 66 –4.3

8703.24.00 Other passenger motor vehicles, with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 251 53 58 10.4

6104.62.20 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 74 67 55 –16.9

0802.60.80 Macadamia nuts, shelled 15 17 41 144.3

3823.70.60 Industrial fatty alcohols, other than derived from fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin 74 38 40 6.2

0805.10.00 Oranges, fresh or dried 34 31 39 26.2

2401.20.85 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped, threshed or similarly processed, not from cigar leaf 6 25 29 16.9

2204.21.50 Non-sparkling wine of fresh grapes, other than Tokay, not over 14 percent alcohol, in containers not over 2 

liters 25 23 27 21.5

2207.10.60 Undenatured ethyl alcohol for nonbeverage purposes 23 17 23 31.8

6104.63.20 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 26 18 23 29.4

6103.43.15 Men's or boys' trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 24 30 21 –30.7

6105.10.00 Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 46 38 19 –50.5

2710.11.15 Light motor fuel, 70 percent or more by weight from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals, other than 

crude 31 1 19 1,907.5

6204.63.35 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 25 26 17 –34.1

Total of items shown 56,013 27,798 38,449 38.3

All other 361 253 216 –14.6

Total of all commodities 56,374 28,050 38,665 37.8

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-34 

TABLE A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by source, 2008–10

Source 2008

a

2009 2010

% change 

2009–10

Millions of $

Colombia 7,339 5,589 9,473 69.5

Ecuador 6,595 2,748 4,179 52.1

Peru 3,169 1,376 759 –44.8

Bolivia 140

Total 17,242 9,714 14,411 48.3

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

 

a

Includes imports under ATPA from Bolivia.
A-35

TABLE A.16 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under ATPA, by HTS provision, 2008–10

HTS No. Description 2008

a

2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 10,128 6,036 8,772 45.3

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or 

more 2,079 921 3,172 244.6

0603.11.00 Roses, fresh 310 305 314 2.8

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. 629 245 310 26.7

0603.19.00 Anthuriums, alstroemeria, gypsophilia, lilies, snapdragons and other flowers n.e.s.o.i., 

fresh 193 188 212 12.9

0603.14.00 Chrysanthemums, fresh 67 75 97 29.3

2710.11.25 Naphthas, not motor fuel/blending stock, from petroleum oils/oils from bituminous 

minerals, minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 377 127 80 –36.8

6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 163 95 75 –21.8

6203.42.40 Men's or boys' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not 

containing 15 percent or more down 86 49 66 35.2

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 36 32 65 105.8

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 240 127 55 –57.0

1604.14.30 Tunas and skipjack, not in oil, in airtight containers, n.e.s.o.i. 70 43 45 2.5

6105.10.00 Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 176 85 43 –49.3

0603.12.70 Carnations, other than miniature, fresh 38 34 40 18.5

1701.11.10 Raw sugar not containing added flavoring or coloring 15 21 31 47.6

2613.90.00 Molybdenum ores and concentrates, not roasted 54 15 31 112.4

6908.90.00 Glazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed ceramic mosaic cubes and 

the like, n.e.s.o.i. 27 24 26 9.2

2005.99.80 Artichokes, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen 47 31 25 –17.8

7407.10.50 Bars and rods, of refined copper 31 14 25 74.9

0710.80.97 Vegetables n.e.s.o.i., uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, 

reduced in size 36 27 24 –11.9

1604.14.40 Tuna and skipjack, not in airtight containers 6 7 23 233.5

3904.10.00 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 34 19 23 19.9

0603.12.30 Miniature (spray) carnations, fresh 24 22 22 1.2

1704.90.35 Confections ready for consumption 12 16 21 31.1

6204.62.40 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, 

n.e.s.o.i. 21 22 21 –4.6

Total of items shown 14,898 8,578 13,618 58.7

All other 2,345 1,136 793 –30.2

Total of all commodities 17,243 9,714 14,411 48.3

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

Includes imports under ATPA from Bolivia.
A-36 

TABLE A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by source, 2008–10

Source 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Thousands of $

Trinidad and Tobago 2,365,386 1,533,773 2,205,811 43.8

Haiti 405,118 388,854 364,114 –6.4

Bahamas 141,038 96,545 98,989 2.5

Jamaica 319,600 212,365 83,910 –60.5

Belize 129,517 66,019 61,744 –6.5

Panama 46,466 20,607 28,435 38.0

St. Kitts-Nevis 14,071 8,919 20,466 129.5

Guyana 20,613 14,418 10,632 –26.3

St. Lucia 11,081 10,937 9,199 –15.9

Barbados 6,913 4,603 7,233 57.1

Netherlands Antilles 11,933 868 1,193 37.4

Aruba 229 153 566 269.9

Grenada 126 78 150 92.3

St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines 171 117 124 6.0

British Virgin Islands 437 26 86 230.8

Dominica 200 115 53 –53.9

Antigua and Barbuda 94 231 21 –90.9

Costa Rica 1,252,756 0 0 (

a

)

Total 4,725,749 2,358,628 2,892,726 22.6

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Costa Rica was only eligible for CBERA 

benefits before CAFTA–DR entered into force for that country on January 1, 2009. 

 a Not applicable.
A-37

TABLE A.18 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under CBERA, by HTS provision, 2008–10

HTS No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 904 800 1,249 56.1

2905.11.20 Methanol (methyl alcohol), n.e.s.o.i. 1,175 568 890 56.8

6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 169 194 204 4.7

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 146 152 125 –17.7

3903.11.00 Polystyrene, expandable, in primary forms 136 94 95 1.6

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. 20 29 32 10.6

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 15 10 27 162.9

1701.11.10 Raw sugar not containing added flavoring or coloring 22 11 26 126.9

6109.90.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of man-made 

fibers 22 16 20 23.8

7108.12.50 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought, other than gold bullion and dore 27 9 17 100.7

0714.90.20 Fresh or chilled yams, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets 30 16 14 –9.4

0807.20.00 Papayas (papaws), fresh 14 11 12 5.5

8525.50.30 Transmission apparatus for television, n.e.s.o.i. (

a

) 0 11 (

b

)

1604.14.40 Tuna and skipjack, not in airtight containers 13 13 10 –19.5

2207.10.60 Undenatured ethyl alcohol for nonbeverage purposes 483 203 10 –94.9

2207.10.30 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent volume or 

higher, for beverage purposes 9 6 10 56.2

0804.30.40 Pineapples, fresh or dried, not reduced in size, in crates or other packages 393 6 8 34.2

8529.10.20 Television antennas and antenna reflectors, and parts suitable for use therewith 8 9 8 –15.0

2009.11.00 Frozen concentrated orange juice 65 17 7 –60.2

2933.61.00 Melamine 0 0 6 (

b

)

2202.10.00 Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other 

sweetening matter or flavored 4 3 6 83.3

2009.19.00 Orange juice, not frozen, of a Brix value exceeding 20 1 2 6 182.1

2106.90.99 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included 1 1 6 380.3

0804.50.60 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period June 1 through 

August 31, inclusive 3 4 5 45.9

2202.90.90 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i. 4 5 5 9.5

Total of items shown 3,662 2,179 2,809 28.9

All other 1,063 179 84 –53.4

Total of all commodities 4,726 2,359 2,893 22.6

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.” Costa Rica was

only eligible for CBERA benefits before CAFTA-DR entered into force for that country on January 1, 2009. 

 a Less than $500,000.

 b Not applicable.
A-38

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2010

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS26 European 

Communities—Measures 

Concerning Meat and Meat 

Products (Hormones)

United States United States requests consultations (01/26/96).

Panel report circulated (08/18/97).

Appellate Body report circulated (01/16/98) and adopted 

(02/13/98).

[Intervening actions omitted.]

EC requests consultations with U.S. and Canada under 

Article 21.5 (12/22/08). 

Compliance proceedings completed with finding of 

non-compliance (09/30/09). 

DS27 European 

Communities—Regime for 

the Importation, Sale and 

Distribution of Bananas

Ecuador,

Guatemala, 

Honduras, Mexico,

United States

U.S., other complainants request consultations (02/05/96).

Panel report circulated (08/18/97).

Appellate Body report circulated (09/09/97) and adopted 

(09/25/97).

[Intervening actions omitted.]

Ecuador requests consultations under Article 21.5 

(11/16/06).

Ecuador submits revised request for consultations 

(11/28/06).

Ecuador requests establishment of an Article 21.5 panel 

(02/23/07).

Second Recourse to Article 21.5 panel report circulated 

(04/07/08).

Second Recourse to Article 21.5 Appellate Body report 

adopted with findings that respondent has not complied 

with rulings (12/11/08).

Parties announce comprehensive agreement (12/15/09).

DS217 United States—Continued 

Dumping and Subsidy 

Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd 

Amendment)

Australia, Brazil, 

Chile, European 

Communities, 

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 (09/16/02).

U.S. notifies 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).

DSB authorizes or takes note of various requests or 

agreements to suspend concessions (2004 -2005). 

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 (2006-10). 
A-39

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2010–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS267 United States—Subsidies 

 on Upland Cotton

Brazil Brazil requests consultations (09/27/02).

Panel established (03/18/03) and composed (05/13/03).

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified (03/21/05). 

After the reasonable period of time for implementation 

expires (09/21/05), Brazil seeks authorization to suspend 

concessions, and the U.S. seeks arbitration.

Parties seek suspension of arbitration proceedings 

(11/21/05). 

Brazil requests the establishment of Article 21.5 panel 

(08/18/06) and panel is established (10/25/06).

Article 21.5 panel report circulated (12/18/07).

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report circulated (06/02/08). 

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report adopted (06/20/08).

Recourse to Article 22.6 Arbitration Report circulated 

(08/31/09).

DSB authorizes Brazil to suspend concessions or other 

obligations (11/19/09).

Brazil submits list of products on which it will suspend 

concessions and also announces it will suspend certain 

concessions or other obligations under TRIPS Agreement 

and/or GATS beginning April 7, 2010 (03/08/10).

Brazil informs DSB it will postpone imposition of 

countermeasures pending negotiations (04/30/10).

Brazil and U.S. inform DSB that they have concluded a 

Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution to the Cotton 

Dispute and that Brazil will not impose countermeasures 

authorized by the DSB (08/25/10).

DS291 European 

Communities—Measures 

Affecting the Approval and 

Marketing of Biotech 

Products

United States U.S. requests consultations (05/13/03).

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

disputes DS292 and DS293 (06/29/03); panel composed 

(03/04/04).

Panel reports circulated (09/29/06).

DSB adopts the panel reports (11/21/06).

The EC announces its intention to implement 

recommendations and rulings and announces intent to 

discuss appropriate timeframe pursuant to DSU Article 

21.3(b) with Argentina, Canada, and U.S. (12/19/06).

U.S. and EC agree on a reasonable period of time for 

implementation (06/21/07).

U.S. and EC inform DSB they have reached agreement on 

procedures under Articles 21 and 22 (01/14/08).

U.S. asks for authorization to suspend concessions 

(01/17/08). 

DSB refers matter to arbitration (02/08/08).

EC and U.S. ask arbitrator to suspend work (02/15/08).

US reiterated its concerns, at DSB meeting, that individual 

EU member states continued to ban certain biotech 

products even after having received EU-wide approval 

(12/21/09).
A-40

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2010–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

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).

Appellate Body report adopted (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 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 arbitration (02/18/10). 

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). 

Appellate Body notifies that it will hold hearings in 

November and December and establish a date for

circulation of a report thereafter (09/17/10). 

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 and modified panel reports 

(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 request arbitrator to resume arbitration proceedings 

(04/23/10).

Japan asks Director General to appoint replacement 

arbitrator (05/25/10).

New arbitrator notified to DSB (06/03/10).
A-41

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2010–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 (01/26/07). 

Panel report circulated (12/20/07).

Mexico notifies DSB of decision to appeal (01/31/08).

Appellate Body and modified panel reports adopted 

(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 reasonable time for 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 defer the matter to the original panel if 

possible (09/21/10).

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).

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 had agreed that 

the reasonable period for China to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings would be 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).

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 their decisions 

to appeal.

Appellate Body report circulated (12/21/09).

Appellate Body report adopted (01/19/10). 

China and U.S. inform DSB that they had agreed that a 

reasonable period for China to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings would by March 14, 2011 

(07/12/10).
A-42

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2010–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

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). 

DS381 United States—Measures 

Concerning the 

Importation, Marketing and 

Sale of Tuna and Tuna 

Products

Mexico Mexico requests consultations with 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 

of members (08/12/10).

Chairman informs DSB that panel is likely to issue its final 

report to the parties on June 8, 2011 (02/24/11).

DS382 United 

States—Anti-Dumping 

Administrative Reviews 

and Other Measures 

Related to Imports of 

Certain Orange Juice from 

Brazil 

Brazil Brazil requests consultations (11/27/08).

Panel established (09/25/09) and composed (05/10/10). 

Panel report circulated (03/25/11). 

DS383 United 

States—Anti-Dumping 

Measures on Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand 

Thailand Thailand requests consultations (11/26/08).

Panel established (03/20/09) and composed (08/20/09). 

Panel report circulated (01/22/10). 

DSB adopts panel report (02/18/10).

Thailand and U.S. inform the DSB that they agreed that a 

reasonable time for the U.S. to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings would be by August 18, 2010 

(03/31/10).

U.S. informs the DSB that it has implemented the DSB 

recommendations and rulings (08/31/10).

DS384 United States—Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

(Cool) Requirements 

Canada Canada requests consultations (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).

DS386 United States—Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

Requirements

Mexico Mexico requests consultations (12/17/08).

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

DS384 (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).

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).
A-43

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2010–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS392 United States—Certain 

Measures Affecting 

Imports of Poultry from

China

China China requests consultations (04/17/09).

Panel established (07/31/09) and composed (09/23/09).

Panel report circulated (09/29/10).

Panel report adopted (10/25/10).

DS394 China—Measures Related 

to the Exportation of 

Various Raw Materials

United States U.S. requests consultations (06/23/09).

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

disputes DS395 and DS398 (12/21/09); panel composed 

(03/29/10). 

Panel chairman informs DSB that the panel expects to 

complete its work by April 2011 (10/19/10).

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).

DSB agrees, at the request of China and the U.S., to adopt 

the panel report by May 24, 2011, unless the DSB decides 

not to do so, or China or the U.S. notifies the DSB that it will 

appeal the decision (02/07/11).

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).

Panel report adopted (02/24/11).

DS404 United States—Anti-dumping 

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 chairman notifies DSB that the panel expects to 

issue its final report to the parties on May 6, 2011 

(01/10/11).

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 chairman informs DSB that the panel’s final report 

will be issued by the end of June 2011 (03/08/11).

DS413 China—Certain Measures 

Affecting Electronic Payment 

Services 

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/15/10).

Panel established (03/25/11).

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).

DS419 China—Measures 

concerning wind power 

equipment

United States U.S. requests consultation (12/22/10).

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 2010; intermediate procedural actions are generally omitted. 

 Selected pre-2010 and post-2010 actions are noted to place the 2010 actions in context. 
A-44 

TABLE A.20 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations of 

USITC and USDOC, developments in 2010

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-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 (04/14/10). 

USA-MEX-2007-1904-03 Welded Large Diameter Pipe (ITC 

Negative Sunset Determination)

Request for panel review (11/21/07).

Oral argument (07/21/10). 

Panel order affirming in part and 

remanding in part (01/18/11). 

ITC remand determination (04/12/11). 

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-2008-1904-03 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube (USDOC Final Affirmative 

Antidumping Determination)

Panel concludes that USDOC’s final 

determination is supported by 

substantial evidence and is otherwise 

lawful (7/20/10).

USA-MEX-2008-1904-04 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube from China, Korea, and Mexico 

(ITC 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). 

ITC remand determination (02/08/11). 

Panel order affirming ITC’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 (ITC Affirmative 

Final Injury Determination)

Request for panel review (12/22/10).

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). 

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, "Status Report NAFTA and FTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings," 

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/StatusReport.aspx

Note: This list includes active cases during 2010, including those in which little if any formal action occurred 

during 2010.
A-45

TABLE A.21 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union,

a

by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 6,756 5,204 6,054 16.3

1 Beverages and tobacco 1,541 1,314 1,477 12.4

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 12,100 6,918 9,630 39.2

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 14,269 11,041 13,235 19.9

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 320 215 265 23.6

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 53,888 50,045 53,368 6.6

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 15,909 10,773 13,687 27.0

7 Machinery and transport equipment 101,086 75,341 75,260 –0.1

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 31,671 27,384 27,421 0.1

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 13,657 14,158 16,932 19.6

 Total 251,196 202,392 217,329 7.4

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 5,274 4,874 5,365 10.1

1 Beverages and tobacco 9,746 8,597 9,149 6.4

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 3,133 2,020 2,645 30.9

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 30,404 15,900 18,991 19.4

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1,001 826 842 1.9

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 84,498 77,821 83,334 7.1

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 37,219 23,667 29,948 26.5

7 Machinery and transport equipment 132,024 92,638 109,070 17.7

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 41,564 33,160 37,472 13.0

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 18,803 18,600 18,064 –2.9

 Total 363,667 278,104 314,880 13.2

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

Includes 27 EU countries.
A-46

TABLE A.22 Leading U.S. exports to the European Union,

a

by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8800.00 bAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 25,199 22,447 –10.9

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 9,630 10,789 9,767 –9.5

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 9,195 7,148 7,462 4.4

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 5,218 6,866 6,620 –3.6

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 6,497 7,580 6,483 –14.5

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 3,525 2,789 3,894 39.6

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 5,449 2,216 3,610 62.9

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 3,131 2,989 3,003 0.4

3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 2,255 2,081 2,296 10.3

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic 

compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 281 714 1,974 176.3

9018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 1,720 1,996 1,951 –2.3

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 2,535 1,680 1,854 10.4

8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine 

(diesel), cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 4,781 2,699 1,591 –41.0

3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 1,213 2,035 1,481 –27.3

9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus n.e.s.o.i., and parts 1,438 1,481 1,425 –3.8

8411.99 Gas turbines parts, n.e.s.o.i. 2,013 1,583 1,412 –10.8

2933.39 Heterocyclic compounds containing an unfused pyridine ring, whether or not hydrogenated, in 

the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 943 1,167 1,257 7.7

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 967 1,026 1,242 21.0

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by hand, framed or not framed 2,549 1,729 1,211 –29.9

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 1,600 773 1,117 44.6

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 1,209 1,248 1,104 –11.6

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous wood 1,134 841 1,075 27.8

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 6,745 1,159 1,049 –9.5

7112.99 Waste and scrap of precious metals, other than of gold or platinum, n.e.s.o.i. 1,808 734 1,049 43.0

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 1,300 1,158 1,019 –12.0

 Total of items shown 77,135 89,682 87,393 –2.6

All other 174,062 112,710 129,936 15.3

 Total of all commodities 251,196 202,392 217,329 7.4

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.”

 

a

Includes 27 EU countries.

 

b

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported these 

data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-47

TABLE A.23 Leading U.S. imports from the European Union,

a

by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 21,765 21,779 22,004 1.0

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 16,012 8,709 13,986 60.6

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 19,686 10,153 11,106 9.4

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 13,193 7,900 10,382 31.4

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds, 

n.e.s.o.i. 9,635 7,109 7,339 3.2

8411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 6,129 5,535 5,399 –2.5

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 7,349 3,432 5,228 52.3

2933.99 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only, n.e.s.o.i. 4,981 6,450 4,673 –27.5

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 2,950 3,199 3,830 19.7

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 3,560 3,293 3,563 8.2

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by hand, framed or not framed 4,000 2,714 3,546 30.7

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 3,364 2,326 3,111 33.7

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 3,336 2,851 3,042 6.7

3004.39 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing hormones or derivatives/steroids used primarily 

as hormones, but not containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 2,300 2,123 2,938 38.3

2933.59 Heterocyclic compounds containing a pyrimidine (hydrogenated or not) or piperazine ring in the 

structure, n.e.s.o.i. 923 1,723 2,536 47.2

3002.90 Human blood; animal blood prepared for medical uses; toxins, cultures of micro-organisms 

(excluding yeasts) and similar products n.e.s.o.i. 717 713 2,436 241.6

8411.12 Turbojets of a thrust exceeding 25 kN 2,366 2,157 2,350 8.9

9021.39 Artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 2,310 1,802 2,349 30.4

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 2,034 2,316 2,274 –1.8

2204.21 Wine n.e.s.o.i. of fresh grapes or fortified wine, in containers not over 2 liters 2,545 2,074 2,146 3.5

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 2,153 1,731 1,916 10.7

3302.10 Mixtures of odoriferous substances and mixtures with a basis of these substances, used in the 

food or drink industries 2,038 1,788 1,828 2.3

3004.32 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing corticosteroid hormones or analogues, but not 

containing antibiotics 824 1,217 1,790 47.1

3004.31 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing insulin but not containing antibiotics 1,343 1,826 1,726 –5.5

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 739 850 1,611 89.5

 Total of items shown 136,253 105,770 123,108 16.4

All other 227,413 172,334 191,773 11.3

 Total of all commodities 363,667 278,104 314,880 13.2

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

Includes 27 EU countries.
A-48

TABLE A.24 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 14,386 13,979 15,077 7.9

1 Beverages and tobacco 970 1,051 1,161 10.4

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 7,760 4,866 6,418 31.9

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 15,830 9,299 11,542 24.1

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 549 516 569 10.3

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 25,111 21,661 25,401 17.3

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 32,597 24,934 30,866 23.8

7 Machinery and transport equipment 95,191 70,175 86,730 23.6

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 21,086 18,187 20,026 10.1

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 8,945 7,027 8,165 16.2

 Total 222,424 171,695 205,956 20.0

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 16,803 14,283 15,794 10.6

1 Beverages and tobacco 815 679 780 14.9

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 12,432 7,703 10,474 36.0

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 111,266 63,640 82,107 29.0

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1,545 1,031 1,191 15.5

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 27,149 20,462 24,305 18.8

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 46,585 30,697 36,987 20.5

7 Machinery and transport equipment 85,135 60,267 75,800 25.8

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 14,657 11,431 12,664 10.8

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 18,452 14,392 15,435 7.3

 Total 334,840 224,584 275,536 22.7

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-49

TABLE A.25 Leading U.S. exports to Canada, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8704.31 Motor vehicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engine, 

gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 4,517 4,665 6,513 39.6

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 6,687 4,024 5,217 29.7

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 6,120 3,628 4,963 36.8

8800.00aAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 4,682 4,266 –8.9

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 4,365 3,064 4,237 38.3

8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 3,950 2,138 3,257 52.4

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 3,842 2,466 2,810 14.0

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 4,019 2,225 2,649 19.1

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,627 1,580 2,349 48.6

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 1,347 1,740 1,975 13.5

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 1,682 741 1,895 155.7

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,913 1,348 1,750 29.8

7112.91 Gold waste and scrap, including metal clad with gold but excluding sweepings containing other 

precious metals 1,778 1,507 1,529 1.5

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 2,296 1,620 1,374 –15.2

8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,220 1,079 1,310 21.4

8523.40 Optical media 1,366 1,197 1,276 6.5

8716.10 Trailers and semi-trailers for housing or camping 1,080 668 1,060 58.7

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 993 943 1,052 11.6

7606.12 Rectangular plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick, of aluminum alloy 1,307 767 1,032 34.7

8708.80 Suspension systems and parts thereof, including shock absorbers, for motor vehicles 950 681 1,003 47.3

4901.99 Printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, other than in single sheets 998 947 991 4.7

8708.30 Brakes and servo-brakes for motor vehicles, and parts thereof 884 795 985 23.9

8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 978 586 965 64.9

4902.90 Newspapers, etc. appearing less than 4 times per week 994 858 951 10.9

2106.90 Food preparations, other than protein concentrates and textured protein substances, n.e.s.o.i. 831 802 913 13.7

 Total of items shown 56,744 44,750 56,322 25.9

All other 165,680 126,945 149,634 17.9

 Total of all commodities 222,424 171,695 205,956 20.0

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

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported 

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-50

TABLE A.26 Leading U.S. imports from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 62,485 36,972 48,236 30.5

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 25,184 16,594 24,822 49.6

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 26,703 12,391 13,646 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 6,173 6,164 10,919 77.1

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent 

by weight of such products, not light 7,695 5,166 7,824 51.4

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 5,496 3,726 5,343 43.4

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 2,641 2,073 4,238 104.4

3104.20 Medicaments, for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, in measured doses, containing antibiotics 

other than penicillins 3,084 1,964 2,929 49.2

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 3,600 3,547 2,800 –21.1

4407.10 Coniferous wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, of thickness exceeding 6mm 3,216 1,987 2,685 35.1

8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 2,203 1,743 2,568 47.3

7601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 3,161 2,282 2,489 9.1

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,505 1,422 2,345 64.9

2716.00 Electrical energy 3,641 2,071 2,071 0.0

7601.20 Unwrought aluminum alloys 2,366 1,235 2,044 65.5

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,296 1,316 1,862 41.5

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous wood 1,931 1,224 1,793 46.5

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 2,506 2,093 1,713 –18.2

2711.12 Propane, liquefied 2,387 1,424 1,704 19.7

3901.90 Polymers of ethylene n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 1,528 1,067 1,450 35.9

4801.00 Newsprint, in rolls or sheets 2,331 1,395 1,348 –3.4

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 2,068 2,181 1,258 –42.3

7403.11 Refined copper, cathodes and sections of cathodes 1,826 915 1,231 34.5

7118.90 Coin, of gold or used as legal tender 637 798 1,112 39.3

8802.30 Airplanes and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 kg 1,361 791 1,085 37.1

 Total of items shown 179,025 112,540 149,513 32.9

All other 155,814 112,045 126,023 12.5

 Total of all commodities 334,840 224,584 275,536 22.7

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-51

TABLE A.27 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 2,313 2,446 3,184 30.2

1 Beverages and tobacco 142 158 196 24.2

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 20,008 20,917 27,282 30.4

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 401 524 1,333 154.1

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 164 70 430 510.9

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 9,136 9,908 12,416 25.3

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 4,833 3,981 4,790 20.3

7 Machinery and transport equipment 25,298 22,162 29,292 32.2

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 4,200 4,368 5,516 26.3

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 671 590 1,306 121.4

 Total 67,166 65,124 85,746 31.7

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 4,796 4,143 4,868 17.5

1 Beverages and tobacco 40 33 31 –8.7

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,760 1,224 1,584 29.4

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 2,023 303 490 62.0

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 47 48 48 –0.5

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 10,734 8,519 10,713 25.8

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 43,644 31,967 37,561 17.5

7 Machinery and transport equipment 151,524 139,029 180,191 29.6

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 118,770 106,528 124,625 17.0

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 4,166 3,751 3,936 4.9

 Total 337,504 295,545 364,047 23.2

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-52

TABLE A.28 Leading U.S. exports to China, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 7,301 9,211 10,821 17.5

8800.00aAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 5,304 5,705 7.6

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 3,477 2,865 3,662 27.8

7404.00 Copper waste and scrap 1,763 1,310 2,359 80.1

5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 1,631 824 2,064 150.6

7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 1,728 1,256 2,025 61.2

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 393 357 1,657 364.7

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 332 445 1,076 141.7

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 762 1,521 960 –36.9

2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 466 490 910 85.8

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or 

paperboard 515 541 735 35.9

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic 

integrated circuits 385 147 714 385.4

8486.10 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers 125 118 611 419.7

2603.00 Copper ores and concentrates 490 297 593 99.7

7204.29 Waste and scrap, of non-stainless alloy steel 697 618 586 –5.1

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 28 118 572 384.2

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or 

bleached, coniferous wood 334 415 545 31.4

2303.30 Brewing or distilling dregs and waste 2 101 504 400.4

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 634 492 491 –0.1

4101.50 Whole raw bovine or equine hides and skins, weight exceeding 16 kilograms, fresh, pickled 

or preserved but not tanned or further prepared 620 445 471 6.0

4707.30 Recovered (waste and scrap) paper or paperboard, mainly of mechanical pulp (for example, 

newspapers, journals and similar printed matter) 418 283 447 57.8

3207.30 Liquid lustres and similar preparations 77 92 444 381.2

4403.20 Coniferous wood in the rough, not treated 64 98 411 321.4

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 499 221 399 80.9

1507.10 Soybean oil and fractions, crude, whether or not degummed 106 33 394 1,079.8

 Total of items shown 22,848 27,601 39,159 41.9

All other 44,318 37,523 46,587 24.2

 Total of all commodities 67,166 65,124 85,746 31.7

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

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported 

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-53

TABLE A.29 Leading U.S. imports from China, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8471.30 Portable digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at least a CPU, 

keyboard and display 19,235 22,909 32,043 39.9

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 12,368 13,055 16,865 29.2

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 8,743 7,679 9,937 29.4

9503.00 Tricycles, scooters, similar wheeled toys; dolls, doll's carriages, and other toys; puzzles; reduced scale 

models 8,965 8,141 9,775 20.1

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 6,811 5,480 8,421 53.7

9504.10 Video games used with television receiver and parts and accessories 8,246 7,032 6,492 –7.7

8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 4,858 5,057 5,132 1.5

6403.99 Footwear not covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber or plastics or composition leather and 

uppers of leather 5,148 4,284 4,721 10.2

8528.51 Monitors, other than cathode-ray tube, designed for use with automatic data processing machines 5,354 3,470 3,975 14.6

8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 3,831 3,390 3,827 12.9

8443.31 Machines that perform two or more of the functions of printing, copying, facsimile transmission, able to 

connect to a computer or network 2,837 2,883 3,774 30.9

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 2,831 2,932 3,744 27.7

6402.99 Footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics n.e.s.o.i. 3,388 3,235 3,626 12.1

8528.59 Monitors, other than cathode-ray tube, not designed for use with automatic data processing machines 3,609 3,177 3,433 8.0

6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 1,992 2,780 3,363 21.0

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 2,968 2,539 3,345 31.7

8504.40 Static converters 2,934 2,616 3,334 27.4

8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units 3,199 2,365 3,104 31.3

4202.92 Trunks, cases, bags and similar containers, with outer surface of plastic sheeting or of textile materials 2,414 2,040 2,690 31.9

8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 1,649 1,626 2,591 59.3

9403.60 Wooden furniture, other than of a kind used in the bedroom 2,532 1,981 2,409 21.6

9504.90 Game machines except coin-operated; board games; mah-jong; dominoes; dice 3,072 2,816 2,319 –17.6

8543.70 Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 813 1,156 2,274 96.7

6403.91 Footwear covering the ankles, with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics, excluding waterproof 

footwear 1,837 1,899 2,264 19.2

6204.62 Women's or girls' trousers, etc., of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 1,269 1,934 2,259 16.8

 Total of items shown 120,905 116,476 145,718 25.1

All other 216,599 179,068 218,329 21.9

 Total of all commodities 337,504 295,545 364,047 23.2

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-54

TABLE A.30 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 11,285 9,240 10,357 12.1

1 Beverages and tobacco 237 281 314 11.9

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 6,721 4,491 5,489 22.2

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 11,082 7,668 14,149 84.5

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 868 639 819 28.1

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 18,464 16,546 19,260 16.4

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 19,640 15,637 19,386 24.0

7 Machinery and transport equipment 47,709 37,863 46,292 22.3

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 10,271 9,310 10,230 9.9

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 5,229 4,042 5,306 31.3

 Total 131,507 105,718 131,602 24.5

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 9,240 9,800 11,786 20.3

1 Beverages and tobacco 2,464 2,357 2,566 8.9

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,589 967 1,447 49.7

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 42,646 24,196 33,086 36.7

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 87 50 51 2.0

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,937 3,397 4,031 18.7

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 15,909 11,509 14,785 28.5

7 Machinery and transport equipment 110,794 95,220 127,754 34.2

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 20,711 18,275 22,308 22.1

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 8,952 10,539 11,009 4.5

 Total 216,328 176,309 228,824 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-55

TABLE A.31 Leading U.S. exports to Mexico, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products 4,668 3,996 7,297 82.6

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 4,409 2,324 4,071 75.2

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,711 2,155 2,792 29.6

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,714 1,296 2,322 79.2

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 2,305 1,385 1,568 13.2

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 1,916 1,027 1,514 47.5

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 1,786 1,350 1,494 10.7

3926.90 Articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914, n.e.s.o.i. 1,341 1,109 1,402 26.4

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 763 848 1,253 47.8

8800.00aAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 1,151 1,243 8.0

8408.20 Compression-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,117 712 1,214 70.6

8538.90 Parts for electrical apparatus for electrical circuits; for electrical control n.e.s.o.i. 1,232 910 1,198 31.7

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,378 646 1,090 68.6

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,910 1,215 1,068 –12.1

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 472 324 1,039 220.6

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching/routing apparatus 462 699 1,032 47.6

2902.43 Para-xylene 738 903 1,019 12.8

7326.90 Articles of iron or steel n.e.s.o.i. 972 787 984 25.0

8536.90 Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 906 705 814 15.3

8544.49 Insulated electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 80 volts, not fitted with connectors, 

n.e.s.o.i. 895 608 808 33.0

3901.20 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms 762 648 748 15.4

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 706 669 743 11.0

8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 454 504 733 45.4

3902.10 Polypropylene, in primary forms 861 562 729 29.7

7408.11 Wire of refined copper, with a maximum cross sectional dimension over 6 millimeters 752 408 691 69.3

 Total of items shown 35,232 26,940 38,865 44.3

All other 96,276 78,778 92,737 17.7

 Total of all commodities 131,507 105,718 131,602 24.5

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

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported 

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-56

TABLE A.32 Leading U.S. imports from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 37,629 20,962 29,152 39.1

8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 14,306 12,940 13,397 3.5

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 10,425 7,974 12,115 51.9

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 3,762 5,536 9,252 67.1

8704.31 Motor vehicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engine, 

gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 5,115 4,939 7,307 47.9

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 4,883 6,822 6,491 –4.8

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 2,793 2,763 4,691 69.8

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 1,067 2,881 3,984 38.3

8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets of a kind used in vehicles, aircraft or ships 3,587 2,461 3,768 53.1

9401.90 Parts of seats (except medical, barbers, dentist, etc.) 2,810 1,966 3,480 77.1

8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 824 2,043 2,867 40.4

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 2,027 2,099 2,512 19.7

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,915 1,484 2,296 54.7

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 2,469 2,049 2,288 11.7

8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, other components incorporating apparatus for control or distribution 

of electricity, for voltage not exceeding 1,000 volts 1,937 1,550 2,102 35.6

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,696 1,322 2,017 52.6

7106.91 Silver, other than powder, unwrought 1,351 1,090 1,973 81.0

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors 1,693 1,646 1,894 15.0

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 1,231 906 1,861 105.4

8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,587 1,092 1,687 54.5

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 1,044 912 1,669 83.0

2203.00 Beer made from malt 1,567 1,520 1,591 4.7

8471.49 Other digital automated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems 249 308 1,569 410.1

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display 

device 3,341 1,676 1,563 –6.7

0702.00 Tomatoes, fresh or chilled 1,143 1,126 1,487 32.2

 Total of items shown 110,451 90,064 123,012 36.6

All other 105,877 86,245 105,812 22.7

 Total of all commodities 216,328 176,309 228,824 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-57

TABLE A.33 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 11,905 10,123 10,792 6.6

1 Beverages and tobacco 847 606 576 –5.0

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 4,820 2,962 3,859 30.3

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,319 876 1,806 106.3

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 77 69 62 –10.2

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 10,299 8,390 11,082 32.1

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,412 2,330 2,906 24.7

7 Machinery and transport equipment 19,378 13,632 14,640 7.4

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 8,010 6,847 8,138 18.8

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,370 1,240 1,865 50.4

 Total 61,435 47,074 55,727 18.4

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 546 558 569 2.0

1 Beverages and tobacco 65 64 76 19.3

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 626 421 509 20.9

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 575 274 480 75.3

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 39 31 35 13.5

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 8,532 7,739 8,983 16.1

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 8,596 6,617 8,626 30.4

7 Machinery and transport equipment 105,462 69,062 87,683 27.0

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 10,916 8,116 9,612 18.4

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 3,755 3,120 3,364 7.8

 Total 139,112 96,002 119,938 24.9

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-58

TABLE A.34 Leading U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8800.00a

Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 4,089 4,214 3.1

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 3,845 2,825 3,024 7.0

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 938 1,185 1,582 33.4

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 1,366 1,101 1,127 2.4

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 1,616 793 794 0.1

0203.19 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i, fresh or chilled 723 747 776 3.8

9018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories 

thereof 590 536 741 38.3

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 605 668 719 7.7

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 583 650 716 10.1

0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 608 621 678 9.2

2909.19 Acyclic ethers, excluding diethyl ether, and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated, or 

nitrosated derivatives 38 76 641 740.0

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 2,096 736 637 –13.5

2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 829 717 635 –11.4

3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 557 542 515 –5.0

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic 

integrated circuits 782 287 512 78.2

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 409 220 497 125.6

9021.39 Artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 254 273 480 75.8

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 221 128 456 255.8

1214.90 Rutabagas (swedes), mangolds, fodder roots, hay, clover, kale, vetches, and other 

forage products, n.e.s.o.i., whether or not in pellet form 422 442 446 1.0

9306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, etc., and parts 367 256 388 51.4

2711.11 Natural gas, liquefied 322 257 387 50.9

0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 213 238 335 40.8

2402.20 Cigarettes containing tobacco 598 345 311 –9.9

2309.10 Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale 273 292 299 2.6

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images 

or other data, including switching/routing apparatus 387 299 299 0.1

 Total of items shown 18,642 18,324 21,210 15.8

All other 42,794 28,751 34,517 20.1

 Total of all commodities 61,435 47,074 55,727 18.4

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.”

 

a

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported these 

data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-59

TABLE A.35 Leading U.S. imports from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change 

2009–10

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 17,359 12,787 17,196 34.5

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity 

over 3,000 cc 17,877 9,064 13,283 46.6

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 4,697 3,897 3,969 1.9

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,808 1,703 2,382 39.9

8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 3,273 2,151 2,363 9.8

8703.22 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine over 1,000 but 

over 1,500 cc 6,733 2,751 2,182 –20.7

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 1,642 1,983 2,068 4.3

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated circuits 1,213 1,113 1,766 58.6

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,441 1,127 1,625 44.3

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 995 1,376 1,411 2.5

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and racing cars 784 678 922 36.1

2933.79 Lactams, excluding 6-hexanelactam, clobazam, and methyprylon 631 929 880 –5.3

8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,111 667 879 31.6

8411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 959 824 874 6.1

8486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of semiconductors, flat panels, or 

electronic integrated circuits 581 479 867 81.0

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 662 528 860 62.8

8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 819 576 829 44.0

3818.00 Chemical elements doped for use in electronics, in the form of discs, wafers, similar forms; chemical 

compounds doped for use in electronics 1,059 645 786 21.9

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 767 535 753 40.6

9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus n.e.s.o.i., and parts 678 579 690 19.2

9102.11 Wrist watches, with battery, mechanical display, of base metal 596 486 671 38.0

8408.90 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel engines), n.e.s.o.i. 648 349 655 87.6

9002.11 Objective lenses and parts and accessories thereof for cameras, projectors or photographic enlargers or 

reducers 674 495 650 31.3

8429.52 Self-propelled mechanical shovels and excavators, with a 360-degree revolving superstructure 1,123 344 634 84.1

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 615 467 619 32.5

 Total of items shown 69,747 46,533 59,814 28.5

All other 69,366 49,468 60,124 21.5

 Total of all commodities 139,112 96,002 119,938 24.9

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-60

TABLE A.36 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 4,915 3,331 4,461 33.9

1 Beverages and tobacco 61 49 53 7.8

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 3,518 2,929 3,553 21.3

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,104 1,169 1,517 29.8

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 141 98 89 –9.4

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 4,902 4,376 5,982 36.7

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,705 1,408 1,906 35.4

7 Machinery and transport equipment 12,600 10,463 14,390 37.5

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 3,564 2,665 3,857 44.7

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 564 586 1,028 75.5

 Total 33,074 27,074 36,836 36.1

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 279 290 334 15.3

1 Beverages and tobacco 74 76 81 6.2

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 459 234 376 60.4

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,497 1,101 1,659 50.6

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1 2 3 69.9

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,239 1,583 2,172 37.2

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 6,201 4,035 5,909 46.4

7 Machinery and transport equipment 32,206 28,718 34,078 18.7

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,678 1,944 2,299 18.3

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,053 785 1,003 27.7

 Total 46,687 38,770 47,914 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.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.”
A-61

TABLE A.37 Leading U.S. exports to Korea, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits

654 720 1,986 175.9

8800.00aAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 1,345 1,579 17.4

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 2,159 1,116 1,422 27.3

8541.29 Transistors, other than photosensitive, with a dissipation rate greater than or equal to 1 Watt 1,068 1,207 922 –23.6

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 967 813 882 8.5

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 295 351 720 105.3

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 304 393 645 64.1

2926.10 Acrylonitrile 424 314 484 54.0

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 617 363 449 23.8

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 185 187 424 126.3

2707.30 Xylenes 138 257 379 47.9

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 338 312 377 20.9

8486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of semiconductors, flat 

panels, or electronic integrated circuits

292 336 350 3.9

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 526 271 345 27.2

9306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, etc., and parts 102 151 342 126.3

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 187 277 312 12.4

2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar products with 

predominate aromatic constituent

321 305 305 –0.1

8486.10 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semicinductor boules or wafers 26 44 258 478.8

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 104 197 246 24.8

0202.20 Meat of bovine animals, cuts with bone in, other than in half or whole carcasses, frozen 110 77 242 213.3

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 1,433 0 238 (

b

)

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 357 206 235 14.0

4101.20 Whole raw bovine or equine hides, not over 8 kg when dried, 10 kg when dry salted, or 16 kg when 

fresh or otherwise preserved, not tanned

121 94 226 140.7

7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 382 187 215 15.0

0202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 160 95 212 123.5

 Total of items shown 11,270 9,621 13,793 43.4

All other 21,805 17,453 23,043 32.0

 Total of all commodities 33,074 27,074 36,836 36.1

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

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported these 

data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."

 

bNot applicable.
A-62

TABLE A.38 Leading U.S. imports from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 8,399 8,178 7,490 –8.4

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 5,745 5,212 5,625 7.9

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,501 1,420 2,629 85.1

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,214 1,015 1,535 51.3

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 2,101 1,257 1,308 4.1

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent by 

weight of such products, not light 1,081 701 1,185 69.0

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and racing 

cars 571 480 949 97.7

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors 642 589 863 46.5

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 797 764 838 9.7

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 523 382 731 91.6

8450.20 Household- or laundry-type washing machines, with a dry linen capacity exceeding 10 kilograms 411 524 644 22.9

8451.29 Drying machines for textile yarns, fabrics, or made up textile articles, with a dry linen capacity 

exceeding 10 kilograms 305 422 525 24.2

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 373 134 485 262.7

2902.20 Benzene 527 234 424 80.8

8504.23 Liquid dielectric transformers having a power handling capacity exceeding 10,000 kva 278 327 415 26.8

8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 417 386 401 3.7

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 462 320 389 21.6

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 369 320 371 16.1

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 176 154 353 129.8

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 211 268 336 25.3

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 290 249 334 34.1

8708.30 Brakes and servo-brakes for motor vehicles, and parts thereof 209 144 269 86.7

8517.69 Other apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, n.e.s.o.i. 218 197 260 32.0

8523.51 Solid state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 204 213 226 5.7

8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 110 95 225 136.7

 Total of items shown 27,133 23,985 28,810 20.1

All other 19,554 14,784 19,104 29.2

 Total of all commodities 46,687 38,770 47,914 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-63

TABLE A.39 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 2,122 2,012 2,115 5.1

1 Beverages and tobacco 47 46 51 10.6

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 3,059 2,042 2,707 32.6

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 269 113 138 21.8

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 29 23 17 –26.3

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,675 2,791 4,091 46.6

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,412 859 1,122 30.6

7 Machinery and transport equipment 10,814 6,858 10,402 51.7

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,712 1,612 2,501 55.1

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 488 356 759 113.6

 Total 23,628 16,712 23,904 43.0

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 304 272 279 2.4

1 Beverages and tobacco 10 9 15 60.4

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 321 191 256 34.1

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 279 153 150 –1.9

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 9 10 13 32.5

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,250 954 1,308 37.1

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 5,988 3,803 5,155 35.5

7 Machinery and transport equipment 21,400 17,722 21,997 24.1

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 5,326 4,135 4,955 19.8

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,316 825 1,441 74.7

 Total 36,204 28,074 35,568 26.7

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-64

TABLE A.40 Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 973 1,160 2,492 114.7

8800.00aAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 575 1,056 83.5

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 1,875 895 892 –0.4

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 725 431 715 65.7

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 953 719 653 –9.1

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 808 727 613 –15.6

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 1,588 729 592 –18.7

8486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of semiconductors, flat 

panels, or electronic integrated circuits 416 263 578 119.9

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 673 359 572 59.6

9031.41 Optical instruments for inspecting semiconductor wafers or devices, or photomasks or reticles 

used in manufacturing these items 127 281 526 87.2

7204.21 Waste and scrap, of stainless steel 330 226 349 54.9

8541.29 Transistors, other than photosensitive, with a dissipation rate greater than or equal to 1 Watt 104 67 265 295.6

9001.90 Lenses, except contact and spectacle, prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, unmounted, 

other than of glass not optically worked 96 136 261 91.2

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 327 241 231 –4.2

8475.90 Parts of machines for assembling electric/electronic lamps, tubes or flashbulbs, in glass 

envelopes, for manufacturing or hot working glass 311 223 223 0.1

9306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, etc., and parts 25 25 208 746.4

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 57 102 203 99.8

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 413 175 194 10.8

5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 131 103 190 84.7

2902.44 Mixed xylene isomers 67 49 186 275.1

3824.90 Other chemical products and preparations of the chemical and allied industries, n.e.s.o.i. 114 115 182 58.1

2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 109 109 181 66.9

7106.10 Silver powder 97 112 180 60.4

8486.10 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers 27 23 180 696.5

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 207 91 164 79.6

 Total of items shown 10,555 7,936 11,886 49.8

All other 13,073 8,776 12,018 36.9

 Total of all commodities 23,628 16,712 23,904 43.0

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

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported these 

data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-65

TABLE A.41 Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 1,709 2,179 4,246 94.8

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,483 1,155 1,541 33.5

8526.91 Radio navigational aid apparatus 1,678 2,102 1,294 –38.4

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 2,037 1,271 1,248 –1.8

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 964 796 994 24.8

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 1,026 771 895 16.2

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 1,032 695 882 26.8

8523.51 Solid state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 255 282 480 70.6

7318.15 Threaded screws and bolts, of iron or steel, n.e.s.o.i., whether or not with their nuts or washers 486 299 417 39.2

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 259 266 414 55.9

8512.20 Electrical lighting or visual signaling equipment, for use on cycles or motor vehicles, except for use on 

bicycles 361 325 374 15.0

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 242 185 373 102.0

7318.14 Self-tapping screws of iron or steel 446 267 362 35.8

8523.40 Optical media 543 433 361 –16.7

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 345 333 351 5.5

8712.00 Bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorized 324 304 346 13.9

8534.00 Printed circuits 352 247 329 33.4

9506.91 Gymnasium, playground or other exercise articles and equipment; parts and accessories thereof 248 213 318 49.1

8504.40 Static converters 336 239 301 26.4

8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 135 166 300 80.9

8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 174 181 290 60.7

8471.80 Other units of automated data processing machines 243 194 275 41.7

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 328 216 270 24.7

7318.16 Nuts, threaded, of iron or steel 280 150 240 59.8

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 267 198 227 14.8

 Total of items shown 15,553 13,466 17,129 27.2

All other 20,651 14,609 18,439 26.2

 Total of all commodities 36,204 28,074 35,568 26.7

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-66

TABLE A.42 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 533 246 374 52.1

1 Beverages and tobacco 8 6 8 32.1

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 592 464 697 50.1

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 2,235 1,894 4,188 121.1

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 19 11 15 30.7

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 6,909 5,422 7,342 35.4

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,758 1,181 1,704 44.3

7 Machinery and transport equipment 14,566 10,809 13,045 20.7

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,841 1,582 2,012 27.2

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 567 520 773 48.6

 Total 29,027 22,135 30,157 36.2

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 2,185 1,984 2,432 22.6

1 Beverages and tobacco 318 323 324 0.3

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,217 1,269 1,942 53.0

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 8,411 6,183 7,171 16.0

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 32 23 40 73.1

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,990 1,458 2,092 43.5

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 6,395 3,268 4,080 24.9

7 Machinery and transport equipment 6,573 3,242 3,462 6.8

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,187 930 907 –2.5

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 753 934 953 2.1

 Total 30,061 19,612 23,402 19.3

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-67

TABLE A.43 Leading U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

8800.00aAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 4,066 3,978 –2.2

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent 

by weight of such products, not light 940 692 1,892 173.3

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 892 895 1,228 37.2

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 443 381 509 33.9

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 512 582 475 –18.3

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 28 54 406 652.8

3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 34 34 343 920.1

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 299 215 272 26.6

3105.40 Ammonium dihydrogenorthophosphate (monoammonium phosphate), mixtures thereof with 

diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 248 158 255 61.5

8431.49 Parts and attachments for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders, and other grading, 

scraping machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 168 164 239 45.8

2711.12 Propane, liquefied (

b

) 51 225 343.9

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 127 135 202 49.5

2815.12 Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), in aqueous solution (soda lye or liquid soda) 239 217 199 –8.3

2930.90 Organo-sulfur compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 144 188 198 5.3

2902.50 Styrene (vinylbenzene; phenylethylene) 320 108 196 81.7

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 213 148 184 24.5

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 169 61 177 188.3

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 127 94 169 80.2

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 272 148 164 11.0

8414.80 Air pumps and air or other gas compressors, n.e.s.o.i.; ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating 

a fan, n.e.s.o.i. 48 123 156 26.9

3808.91 Insecticides 89 98 152 54.4

8525.50 Transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting or television 119 81 151 87.2

3901.20 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms 90 103 150 46.2

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous wood 126 109 149 37.1

8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 93 140 148 5.7

 Total of items shown 5,741 9,043 12,218 35.1

All other 23,286 13,092 17,939 37.0

 Total of all commodities 29,027 22,135 30,157 36.2

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

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported these data 

in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."

 

b

Less than $500,000
A-68

TABLE A.44 Leading U.S. imports from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 6,522 4,661 5,188 11.3

0901.11 Coffee, not roasted, not decaffeinated 718 727 1,064 46.4

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products, not light 913 817 952 16.5

4703.29 Chemical woodpulp, soda, or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, 

semibleached or bleached, nonconiferous 836 508 912 79.6

7201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5 percent or less phosphorus by weight, in 

primary forms 1,990 478 650 36.1

8802.30 Airplanes and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 

kg 241 272 438 61.2

6802.93 Worked monumental or building stone, n.e.s.o.i., of granite 409 281 412 46.3

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 348 268 371 38.6

8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines 393 190 331 74.3

7207.12 Semifinished iron/nonalloy steel products, under 0.25 percent carbon, 

rectangular/not square, width not less than twice thickness 449 114 312 174.0

2401.20 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped 292 297 295 –0.6

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including 

station wagons and racing cars 241 212 278 31.4

2902.20 Benzene 239 173 261 51.0

2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent 

or higher 454 165 248 50.6

2711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, other than natural gas, in 

a gaseous state 190 156 222 42.4

1701.11 Cane sugar, raw, in solid form, not containing added flavoring or coloring 

matter 37 70 221 217.5

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 1,969 393 206 –47.5

7202.93 Ferroniobium 224 75 201 168.3

2804.69 Silicon, containing by weight less than 99.99 percent of silicon 171 104 192 85.1

2711.14 Ethylene, propylene, butylene, and butadiene, liquefied 83 82 188 129.0

6403.99 Footwear not covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber or plastics or 

composition leather and uppers of leather 310 217 185 –14.7

8414.30 Compressors of a kind used in refrigerating equipment, including air 

conditioning 194 148 182 22.9

2902.43 Para-xylene 101 127 176 38.1

4409.10 Wood, including strips and friezes, continuously shaped along any of its 

edges or faces, coniferous 162 126 171 35.3

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding 

powder 65 98 154 58.0

 Total of items shown 17,552 10,756 13,811 28.4

All other 12,509 8,856 9,591 8.3

 Total of all commodities 30,061 19,612 23,402 19.3

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-69

TABLE A.45 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 335 403 475 17.9

1 Beverages and tobacco 4 3 5 57.1

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 975 1,045 1,136 8.7

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 881 959 1,093 14.0

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 4 123 154 25.2

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 4,790 3,182 3,737 17.5

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 2,173 1,201 1,829 52.3

7 Machinery and transport equipment 6,123 5,636 5,125 –9.1

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,210 1,117 1,296 16.1

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 847 961 1,544 60.7

 Total 17,340 14,629 16,394 12.1

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 1,024 917 1,186 29.3

1 Beverages and tobacco 33 37 31 –16.6

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 535 380 562 47.8

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 337 435 2,324 434.8

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 103 57 97 69.6

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,892 3,647 4,954 35.8

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 10,026 7,300 10,465 43.4

7 Machinery and transport equipment 3,633 2,819 3,738 32.6

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 5,946 5,334 5,938 11.3

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 336 301 320 6.1

 Total 25,866 21,228 29,614 39.5

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-70

TABLE A.46 Leading U.S. exports to India, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding 

powder 497 643 1,179 83.4

8800.00aAircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 2,139 1,156 –46.0

3105.30 Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 2,664 1,034 1,079 4.3

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 1,217 477 825 73.0

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 361 346 462 33.4

2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar 

products with predominate aromatic constituent 369 418 407 –2.5

8411.82 Gas turbines, except turbojets and turbopropellers, of a power not exceeding 5,000 

kW 36 177 271 53.1

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 246 259 254 –1.9

0802.11 Almonds, fresh or dried, in shell 141 139 196 41.2

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, 

images or other data, including switching/routing apparatus 223 199 188 –5.7

2809.20 Phosphoric acid and polyphosphoric acids 228 97 153 58.1

8411.99 Gas turbines parts, n.e.s.o.i. 54 102 148 44.7

4801.00 Newsprint, in rolls or sheets 110 20 135 568.7

1507.10 Soybean oil and fractions, crude, whether or not degummed 0 120 133 11.0

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper 

or paperboard 93 95 126 33.8

3904.10 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 9 96 122 27.1

3815.19 Supported catalysts, n.e.s.o.i. 100 107 109 1.9

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 66 80 106 33.6

8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines 76 68 99 44.1

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products, not light 63 86 94 9.5

7113.19 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal (excluding silver) 118 83 91 9.0

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 183 160 86 –46.5

2926.10 Acrylonitrile 36 12 84 582.2

8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 74 70 82 17.0

3824.90 Other chemical products and preparations of the chemical and allied industries, 

n.e.s.o.i. 33 73 77 4.8

 Total of items shown 6,997 7,101 7,661 7.9

All other 10,343 7,529 8,733 16.0

 Total of all commodities 17,340 14,629 16,394 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

Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported 

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-71

TABLE A.47 Leading U.S. imports from India, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 3,876 3,084 5,166 67.5

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products 4 303 2,102 594.6

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 1,068 1,202 1,840 53.0

7113.19 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal (excluding silver) 1,338 1,077 1,138 5.6

6302.31 Bed linen, other than printed, of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 368 392 584 48.9

6302.60 Toilet and kitchen linen, of terry toweling or similar terry fabrics, of cotton 404 389 465 19.4

6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, 

of cotton 344 332 395 19.1

7305.19 Line pipe used in oil or gas pipelines, external diameter over 406.4 millimeters, of iron or 

steel, riveted or similarly closed, n.e.s.o.i. 315 (

a

) 364 (

b

)

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display 

device 251 240 327 36.1

6206.30 Women's or girls' blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses, of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 261 261 313 20.0

7113.11 Jewelry and parts thereof, of silver, whether or not plated or clad with other precious metal 160 215 291 35.6

0306.13 Shrimps and prawns, including in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, frozen 126 141 285 102.9

8502.31 Electric generating sets, wind-powered 179 244 260 6.4

3004.20 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 229 234 256 9.3

1302.32 Mucilages and thickeners, whether or not modified, derived from locust beans, locust bean 

seeds or guar seeds 144 92 221 140.5

2933.59 Heterocyclic compounds containing a pyrimidine (hydrogenated or not) or piperazine ring in 

the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 129 166 219 31.8

6105.10 Men's or boys' shirts, of cotton, knitted or crocheted 245 199 210 5.5

6205.20 Men's or boys' shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 211 174 207 19.1

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 156 126 203 61.5

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 319 108 202 87.0

6109.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, of cotton, knitted or crocheted 197 163 202 23.5

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic 

compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 45 69 185 166.7

0801.32 Cashew nuts, fresh or dried, shelled 232 169 184 9.2

6204.62 Women's or girls' trousers, etc., of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 251 219 183 –16.3

8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 190 106 180 69.8

 Total of items shown 11,042 9,705 15,981 64.7

All other 14,824 11,522 13,633 18.3

 Total of all commodities 25,866 21,228 29,614 39.5

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.”

 

aU.S. value less than $500,000.

 

b

Percent change is more than 10,000 percent.
A-72

TABLE A.48 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2008–10

SITC Code 

No. Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

Exports:

0 Food and live animals 1,683 1,307 1,067 –18.3

1 Beverages and tobacco 94 54 52 –2.5

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 226 166 186 12.1

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 48 31 47 53.1

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1 1 1 24.8

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 763 560 911 62.8

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 395 258 302 17.2

7 Machinery and transport equipment 5,065 2,448 2,647 8.1

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 632 321 414 29.2

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 28 16 29 83.5

 Total 8,936 5,160 5,657 9.6

Imports:

0 Food and live animals 322 307 285 –7.4

1 Beverages and tobacco 118 146 142 –2.6

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 188 119 270 127.0

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 16,533 11,947 17,319 45.0

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1 (

a

) (

a

) –17.57

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,344 1,650 2,563 55.4

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 5,437 2,654 3,945 48.6

7 Machinery and transport equipment 201 216 282 30.5

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 436 301 353 17.6

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 142 80 39 –51.0

 Total 26,721 17,420 25,199 44.7

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 is less than $500,000.
A-73

TABLE A.49 Leading U.S. exports to Russia, by Schedule B subheading, 2008–10

Schedule B 

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

Millions of $

0207.14 Chicken cuts and edible offal, including livers, frozen 798 744 315 –57.7

8800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 418 243 –41.7

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 380 251 206 –17.7

3904.10 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 15 27 154 467.7

8414.80 Air pumps and air or other gas compressors, n.e.s.o.i.; ventilating or recycling 

hoods incorporating a fan, n.e.s.o.i. 28 51 104 102.6

0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 259 134 95 –29.4

0202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 47 13 92 604.3

8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 60 36 83 132.0

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating 

piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 483 10 78 676.0

8411.99 Gas turbines parts, n.e.s.o.i. 20 25 72 186.2

8411.82 Gas turbines, except turbojets and turbopropellers, of a power not exceeding 

5,000 kW 37 77 70 –9.3

5502.00 Artificial filament tow 45 53 67 26.0

8467.81 Chain saws, for working in the hand, hydraulic or with self-contained nonelectric 

motor 129 55 60 7.8

8479.89 Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 53 54 58 7.5

8701.30 Track-laying tractors 101 9 56 519.0

2844.10 Natural uranium and its compounds; uranium alloys, dispersions, ceramic 

products, and mixtures containing natural uranium or its compounds 15 37 56 52.3

0802.12 Almonds, fresh or dried, shelled 38 35 55 57.3

3912.11 Cellulose acetates, nonplasticized, in primary forms 47 54 54 0.3

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 16 13 52 298.7

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 20 12 52 330.5

0203.22 Meat of swine, specifically hams, shoulders and cuts thereof, with bone in, frozen 43 28 51 80.6

8430.41 Boring or sinking machinery, self-propelled, n.e.s.o.i. 72 17 49 184.4

8431.49 Parts and attachments for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders, 

and other grading, scraping machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 72 102 49 –51.8

3402.20 Washing or cleaning preparations, other than soap, containing aromatic or 

modified aromatic surface-active agent, for retail sale 70 39 43 9.5

8433.90 Parts for harvesting or threshing machinery, mowers, balers, machines for 

cleaning, sorting, grading eggs, fruit/other agricultural produce 22 5 41 724.8

 Total of items shown 2,871 2,301 2,256 –1.9

All other 6,066 2,859 3,400 18.9

 Total of all commodities 8,936 5,160 5,657 9.6

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 Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the aircraft industry and reported 

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts."
A-74

TABLE A.50 Leading U.S. imports from Russia, by HTS subheading, 2008–10

HTS

subheading Description 2008 2009 2010

% change, 

2009–10

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 10,139 7,714 10,376 34.5

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 2,974 2,065 4,062 96.7

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products 2,234 965 1,286 33.3

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 835 856 1,049 22.6

7502.10 Nickel, not alloyed, unwrought 453 294 685 133.0

7207.12 Semifinished iron/nonalloy steel products, under 0.25 percent carbon, rectangular/not 

square, width not less than twice thickness 498 187 480 157.0

7201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5 percent or less phosphorus by weight, in primary forms 413 275 447 62.3

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 396 407 405 –0.5

2711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, other than natural gas, in a gaseous 

state 345 375 383 2.1

3104.20 Medicaments, for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, in measured doses, containing 

antibiotics other than penicillins 702 104 358 245.5

7601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 547 421 250 -40.5

7110.21 Palladium, unwrought or in powder form 716 200 241 20.7

2901.21 Ethylene 127 40 237 486.3

0306.14 Crabs, including in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, frozen 271 264 216 –18.2

8108.90 Titanium and articles thereof, other than unwrought or in powder form or waste and scrap 178 171 211 23.1

7601.20 Unwrought aluminum alloys 252 130 199 52.3

2901.22 Propene (propylene) 151 53 162 207.7

2711.14 Ethylene, propylene, butylene, and butadiene, liquefied 89 87 160 85.1

7202.21 Ferrosilicon, containing by weight more than 55 percent silicon 86 45 159 255.9

7115.90 Articles n.e.s.o.i., of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal 111 72 147 104.6

3102.80 Mixtures or urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution 295 96 140 45.7

2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar products 

with predominate aromatic constituent 41 44 140 220.5

2208.60 Vodka 114 144 139 –3.1

6909.19 Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical or other technical uses, not of porcelain or china, of 

a hardness of less than 9 Mohs 1 22 116 419.6

7202.49 Ferrochromium, containing 4% (wt.) or less carbon 119 74 102 38.5

 Total of items shown 22,086 15,103 22,149 46.7

All other 4,635 2,317 3,050 31.6

 Total of all commodities 26,721 17,420 25,199 44.7

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.”