United States International Trade Commission

61ST REPORT

USITC Publication 4174

July 2010

THE YEAR IN 

TRADE 2009

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

Arona Butcher

Acting Director of Operations

Robert B. Koopman

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4174 July 2010

The Year in Trade 2009

Operation of the Trade Agreements Program

61st Report
This report was principally prepared by the Office of Economics 

Project Leader 

Joanne Guth 

Deputy Project Leader

Edward C. Wilson 

Office of Economics 

Eric Cardenas, Dylan Carlson, Nannette Christ, Justino De La Cruz, 

William Greene, Nick Grossman, Alexander Hammer, 

Walker Pollard, and James Stamps 

Office of the General Counsel

William W. Gearhart 

Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements

Naomi Freeman and Dan Shepherdson 

Office of Investigations

Mary Messer and Andy Rylyk 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations

T. Spence Chubb 

Office of Industries

Katherine Linton and Kevin McCaffrey 

Office of Information Technology Systems

Barbara V. Bobbitt 

Office of Economics Interns

Andrew Martinez, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, 

Donald McLee, and Vincent Procacci 

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 61st 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 2009. 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 2009 ...................................................................................... 1-1 

Exchange rate trends............................................................................................................. 1-2 

Balance of payments............................................................................................................. 1-4 

U.S. trade in goods in 2009 ........................................................................................................ 1-6 

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

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

Imports ............................................................................................................................. 1-7 

U.S. merchandise trade with leading partners....................................................................... 1-8 

U.S. trade in services in 2009...................................................................................................... 1-8 

U.S. services trade by product category................................................................................ 1-11 

Exports ............................................................................................................................. 1-11 

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

U.S. services trade with leading partners.............................................................................. 1-12 

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

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

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

Trade adjustment assistance ........................................................................................................ 2-1 

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

Assistance for farmers........................................................................................................... 2-3 

Assistance for firms .............................................................................................................. 2-4 

Assistance to communities ................................................................................................... 2-5 

Laws against unfair trade practices ............................................................................................. 2-6 

Section 301 investigations .................................................................................................... 2-6 

Section 301 cases in 2009 ................................................................................................ 2-6 

Special 301....................................................................................................................... 2-8 

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and reviews....................................... 2-9 

Antidumping investigations ............................................................................................. 2-9 

Countervailing duty investigations .................................................................................. 2-10 

Reviews of outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders/suspension 

agreements................................................................................................................... 2-11 

Section 337 investigations .................................................................................................... 2-12 

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 

HOPE Acts....................................................................................................................... 2-21 

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

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

Ministerial Conference ......................................................................................................... 3-2 

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

Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 3-3 

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

Trade in services ............................................................................................................. 3-4 

Rules on trade disciplines ............................................................................................... 3-5 

Trade-related intellectual property rights ........................................................................ 3-5 

Geographical indications and the convention on biological diversity ............................ 3-6 

Trade and development ................................................................................................... 3-6 

Trade facilitation ............................................................................................................. 3-7 

Trade and the environment ............................................................................................. 3-7 

Dispute settlement ........................................................................................................... 3-8 

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

Work programs, decisions, and reviews .......................................................................... 3-8 

Dispute Settlement Body ...................................................................................................... 3-11 

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

Requests for consultations filed during 2009 in which the United States was the 

complaining party or named respondent ................................................................ 3-14 

Panels established during 2009 at the request of the United States ............................ 3-14 

Panels established during 2009 in which the United States was the named 

respondent .............................................................................................................. 3-16 

Panel and appellate body reports issued and/or adopted during 2009 that involve the 

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

Reports in which the United States was the complainant ........................................... 3-19 

Reports in which the United States was the respondent.............................................. 3-21 

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

Ministerial Council meeting ................................................................................................. 3-22 

Trade Committee .................................................................................................................. 3-23 

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

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

Regional economic integration ............................................................................................. 3-25

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ................................................................................. 3-26 
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page 

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

FTAs in force during 2009 .......................................................................................................... 4-1 

FTA developments during 2009.................................................................................................. 4-3 

U.S.-Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership ............................................................. 4-5 

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

Free Trade Commission........................................................................................................ 4-7 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation ....................................................................... 4-9 

Dispute settlement................................................................................................................. 4-11 

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 

Lighthouse projects ......................................................................................................... 5-2 

Regulatory cooperation ................................................................................................... 5-3 

Bananas ................................................................................................................................ 5-4 

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

Canada ........................................................................................................................................ 5-6 

Agriculture ........................................................................................................................... 5-7 

Consultative Committee on Agriculture ......................................................................... 5-7 

Organic Products Agreement .......................................................................................... 5-7 

Country-of-origin labeling .............................................................................................. 5-8 

Softwood lumber ............................................................................................................. 5-8 

Arbitration on export measures .................................................................................. 5-8 

Arbitration on provincial subsidies ............................................................................ 5-9 

Government procurement .................................................................................................... 5-10 

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

China .......................................................................................................................................... 5-11 

Intellectual property rights enforcement .............................................................................. 5-12 

Clean energy ........................................................................................................................ 5-13 

Pork ...................................................................................................................................... 5-13 

Global trade imbalances and China’s exchange-rate regime ............................................... 5-14 

Mexico ........................................................................................................................................ 5-15 

Cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico ............................................ 5-16 

Japan ........................................................................................................................................... 5-17 

Regulatory reform ................................................................................................................ 5-18 

Beef ...................................................................................................................................... 5-19 

Automobiles ......................................................................................................................... 5-20 

Republic of Korea ...................................................................................................................... 5-20 

U.S.-Korea FTA ................................................................................................................... 5-21 

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

Intellectual property rights ................................................................................................... 5-22 

Taiwan ........................................................................................................................................ 5-22 
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page 

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

Intellectual property rights ................................................................................................... 5-23 

Beef ...................................................................................................................................... 5-24 

Government procurement .................................................................................................... 5-24 

Brazil .......................................................................................................................................... 5-25 

Trade and investment framework agreement ....................................................................... 5-26 

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

Agriculture ........................................................................................................................... 5-28 

Rice ................................................................................................................................. 5-28 

Wheat .............................................................................................................................. 5-28 

Edible oil ......................................................................................................................... 5-29 

Sugar ............................................................................................................................... 5-29 

Trade and investment dialogue ............................................................................................ 5-29

Intellectual property rights ................................................................................................... 5-30 

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

Figures

ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1992–2009............................................................ xvi 

1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, in percentage change, 2000–09 ........................................ 1-3 

1.2 U.S. real gross domestic product, quarterly, in percentage change, 2008–09........................ 1-3 

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

 monthly, 2009...................................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2007–09 .................................................................. 1-7 

1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2009.................................................... 1-9 

1.6 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2009.................................................... 1-10 

1.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2007–09......................................... 1-10 

1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2009 ......................................... 1-13 

1.9 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2009 .......................................... 1-13 

5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2005–09 ....................................................................... 5-1

5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2005–09 .................................................................. 5-1

5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2005–09 ...................................................................... 5-7 

5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2005–09 ................................................................. 5-7 

5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2005–09......................................................................... 5-11 

5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2005–09.................................................................... 5-11 

5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2005–09 ...................................................................... 5-15

5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2005–09 ................................................................. 5-15

5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2005–09 ......................................................................... 5-17 

5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2005–09 .................................................................... 5-17 

5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2005–09 ........................................................................ 5-21

5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2005–09.................................................................... 5-21 

5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2005–09 ...................................................................... 5-23 

5.14 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2005–09 ................................................................. 5-23 

5.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2005–09 ........................................................................ 5-25 

5.16 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2005–09.................................................................... 5-25 
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page 

Figures—Continued

5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2005–09 .......................................................................... 5-27 

5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2005–09 ..................................................................... 5-27 

Tables

ES.1 Summary of 2009 trade agreement activities ......................................................................... xxv 

1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and with the world, 2009, 

billion of dollars .................................................................................................................. 1-9 

1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2009, 

billion of dollars .................................................................................................................. 1-12 

2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2009 ................................................ 2-11

2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2009.............................................. 2-12

2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries and the world, 2009, 

million of dollars ................................................................................................................. 2-16 

2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA countries, 2007–09............................................ 2-16 

2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2007–09............................................. 2-20 

2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2007–09.......................................... 2-21 

3.1 WTO membership in 2009 ..................................................................................................... 3-10 

3.2 WTO observers in 2009.......................................................................................................... 3-11 

3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established in 2009 .............................................................. 3-15 

3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body reports adopted in 2009........................ 3-20 

4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, total trade, 2007–09, million of dollars............. 4-2 

4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2007–09................................ 4-4 

4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2009 ........................................................................ 4-6 

4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with potential TPP partners, 2007–09 .............................................. 4-7 

4.5 U.S. merchandise trade with NAFTA partners, 2007–09, billion of dollars .......................... 4-8 

4.6 Active files through 2009 under article 14 of the North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation ................................................................................................ 4-10 

4.7 Citizen submissions on enforcement under article 15 of the North American Agreement 

on Environmental Cooperation: Submissions active during 2009 ...................................... 4-11 

4.8 NAFTA chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of the end of 2009 ......................... 4-13 

Appendix tables

A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 ..................... A-3 

A.2 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2007–09 ......................................... A-4 

A.3 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2007–09 .................................... A-5 

A.4 Antidumping cases active in 2009, by USITC investigation number .................................... A-6 

A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2009 .... A-7 

A.6 Countervailing duty cases active in 2009, by USITC investigation number.......................... A-13 

A.7 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2009.............................................. A-14 

A.8 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders 

and suspension agreement completed in 2009, by date of completion.............................. A-15 

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

Trade Commission during 2009 and those pending on December 31, 2009..................... A-16 

A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2009 .................................... A-25 
x

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Appendix tables—Continued

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

or GSP duty free, by HTS provision, 2009, million of dollars.......................................... A-30 

A.12 U.S. imports for consumption and U.S. imports eligible for GSP treatment or duty free, by 

HTS import categories, 2009, millions of dollars.............................................................. A-31 

A.13 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA provisions, by source, 2007–09....................... A-32 

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

provision, 2007–09 ............................................................................................................ A-33 

A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA provisions, by source, 2007–09 ........................ A-34 

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

provision, 2007–09 ............................................................................................................ A-35 

A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA provisions, by source, 2007–09 ..................... A-36 

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

provision, 2007–09 ............................................................................................................ A-37 

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

in 2009 ............................................................................................................................... A-38 

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

 of USITC and Commerce, developments in 2009............................................................ A-44 

A.21 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 .... A-45 

A.22 Leading U.S. exports to the European Union, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 ............ A-46 

A.23 Leading U.S. imports from the European Union, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 .................. A-47 

A.24 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09......................... A-48 

A.25 Leading U.S. exports to Canada, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09................................. A-49 

A.26 Leading U.S. imports from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 ...................................... A-50 

A.27 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 ........................... A-51 

A.28 Leading U.S. exports to China, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 ................................... A-52 

A.29 Leading U.S. imports from China, by HTS subheading, 2007–09......................................... A-53 

A.30 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 ........................ A-54 

A.31 Leading U.S. exports to Mexico, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 ................................ A-55 

A.32 Leading U.S. imports from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 ...................................... A-56 

A.33 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09............................ A-57 

A.34 Leading U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 ................................... A-58 

A.35 Leading U.S. imports from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 ......................................... A-59 

A.36 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09........................... A-60 

A.37 Leading U.S. exports to Korea, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09................................... A-61 

A.38 Leading U.S. imports from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2007–09......................................... A-62 

A.39 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09......................... A-63 

A.40 Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09................................. A-64 

A.41 Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 ...................................... A-65 

A.42 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09........................... A-66 

A.43 Leading U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09................................... A-67 

A.44 Leading U.S. imports from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2007–09......................................... A-68 

A.45 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 ............................ A-69 

A.46 Leading U.S. exports to India, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 .................................... A-70 

A.47 Leading U.S. imports from India, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 .......................................... A-71 
xi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACO Authorized Certificate of Origin 

ACP African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries 

ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

AD antidumping 

AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act 

AIT American Institute in Taiwan 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA) 

ANVISA National Health Surveillance Agency (Brazil) 

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

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 

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity 

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) 

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 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA) 

FTA free trade agreement 
xii

FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas 

FTAAP Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific 

FTC Free Trade Commission (NAFTA) 

G8 Group of eight countries (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 

HLRCF High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum 

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 

MRE Ministry of Foreign Relations (Brazil) 

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 

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) 

PHP Preferential Handling Procedure 

PSAG Private Sector Advisory Group 

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals 

ROO rules of origin 

RTA regional trade agreement 

SCM subsidies and countervailing measures 

S&D special and differential treatment 
xiii

S&ED Strategic and Economic Dialogue 

SITC Standard Industrial Trade Classification 

SLA Softwood Lumber Agreement 

SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises 

SPS sanitary and phytosanitary standards 

SRM specified risk material 

SSA sub-Saharan Africa 

SVE small and vulnerable economy 

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 

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization 

WTO World Trade Organization 

xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The direction of U.S. economic activity shifted in the middle of 2009, from contraction to 

expansion. After declining for more than a year, the U.S. economy grew in the third 

quarter of 2009, driven by an improving financial sector, implementation of monetary 

and fiscal stimulus policies, and recovery in major emerging economies. Although U.S. 

gross domestic product (GDP) decreased 2.4 percent between 2008 and 2009, GDP 

increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent and 5.9 percent in the third and fourth quarters 

of 2009, respectively. 

The U.S. economic downturn reduced U.S. demand for imports during 2009; similarly, 

the rapid global spread of the recession reduced foreign demand for U.S. exports, 

although demand for U.S. exports declined less than U.S. demand for imports did. After 

steep declines at the end of 2008 and during the first quarter of 2009, U.S. trade flows 

began to recover as U.S. and global economic performance improved, particularly in 

emerging economies. However, despite steady increases in U.S. imports and U.S. exports 

after the first quarter, trade levels in 2009 did not reach the pre-crisis levels registered in 

2008. For the year as a whole, the U.S. deficit on goods and services decreased to $378.6 

billion in 2009 from $695.9 billion in 2008 on a balance-of-payments basis. The deficit 

on goods decreased to $517.0 billion in 2009—the smallest deficit since 2002—from 

$840.3 billion in 2008. The U.S. surplus in services decreased to $138.4 billion in 2009 

from $144.3 billion in 2008 (figure ES.1). 

In 2009, the U.S. dollar depreciated approximately 4.5 percent on a trade-weighted 

average basis against a group of major currencies including the Canadian dollar, the euro, 

the Japanese yen, and the Chinese yuan. This U.S. dollar depreciation reflects a sharp 

reversal in the value of the U.S. dollar, which had been appreciating during the latter part 

of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. By year-end 2009, the largest depreciation 

experienced by the dollar among the six major currencies was against the Canadian 

dollar, the British pound, and the euro. The Chinese yuan remained largely fixed to the 

U.S. dollar throughout 2009. 

A summary of U.S. trade agreement activities in 2009 is presented below, followed by a 

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

agreement activities during 2009 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. 
xvi

FIGURE ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1992–2009 

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

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

Billions of $

U.S. service trade balance

U.S. goods trade balance

Source: USDOC. 

Key Trade Developments in 2009

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations 

Safeguard actions: In 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC or the 

Commission) conducted one safeguard investigation under section 421 of the Trade Act 

of 1974 with respect to imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from 

China. The Commission made an affirmative determination of market disruption, and the 

President imposed additional tariffs on such tires from China for a three-year period: 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. In response to a request from China, in January 

2010, a WTO dispute settlement panel was established to examine these U.S. measures. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): In February 2009, President Obama signed the 

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

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This new legislation reauthorized 

and changed certain provisions of the TAA programs for workers, firms, and farmers as 

of May 18, 2009, and created the TAA for Communities program. The TGAAA extended 

the TAA programs until December 31, 2010. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor 

instituted investigations in response to the 4,683 petitions for TAA that it received in 

2009. Of that number, it issued 2,419 certifications for TAA and denied 561 petitions. 
xvii

Section 301: In 2009, there were two active section 301 cases—one concerning the 

European Union’s meat hormone directive and another concerning the 2006 U.S.-

Canadian Softwood Lumber Agreement. With respect to the first case, the United States 

and the European Union signed a memorandum of understanding in May 2009 to address 

the issue. With respect to the second case, which was initiated in April 2009, USTR 

determined that the United States would impose additional 10 percent duties on certain 

imports of softwood lumber from the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and 

Saskatchewan. In addition, one new section 301 petition was filed alleging that the acts, 

policies, and practices of the government of Israel were inconsistent with its obligations 

under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) decided to pursue this case under the 

Special 301 process. 

Special 301: In the 2009 Special 301 review, USTR examined the adequacy and 

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

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

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

China and Russia. Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela, 

along with China and Russia, were maintained on the priority watch list due to significant 

concerns regarding IPR protection. Algeria, Canada, and Indonesia were elevated to the 

priority watch list from the watch list. Thirty-three countries were identified on the watch 

list. 

Antidumping investigations: The USITC instituted 21 new antidumping investigations 

and completed 15 during 2009. Antidumping duty orders were issued by the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (USDOC) in 13 of those completed investigations during 

2009. 

Countervailing duty investigations: The USITC instituted 15 new countervailing duty 

investigations and completed nine investigations during 2009. Countervailing duty orders 

were issued by the USDOC in 2009 in six of the nine completed investigations. 

Sunset reviews: During 2009, USDOC and the USITC instituted 27 sunset reviews of 

existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements. The 

Commission completed 19 reviews, resulting in all 19 antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders and suspension agreements being continued for five additional years. 

Section 337 investigations: During 2009, there were 91 active section 337 investigations 

and ancillary proceedings, 39 of which were instituted in 2009. Of these 39, there were 

31 new section 337 investigations and eight new ancillary proceedings relating to 

previously concluded investigations—the vast majority related to patent infringement. 

Over one-third of the active investigations in 2009 concerned products in the 

semiconductor, telecommunications, and electronics fields. At the close of 2009, 43 

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

Trade Preference Programs 

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

System of Preferences (GSP) program totaled $19.8 billion in 2009; nearly one-third of 

these imports were petroleum products. Angola was the leading GSP beneficiary in 2009, 

followed by Thailand, India, Brazil, and Equatorial Guinea. In December 2009, the 

President announced that the Maldives was added to the list of GSP beneficiaries and that 

Cape Verde would be removed from the U.S. least-developed beneficiary developing 

country list because of its graduation from the United Nations’ least-developed country 

ranking as of January 1, 2010. The President also announced that Croatia and Equatorial 

Guinea will be graduated from the U.S. GSP program in 2011 because they surpassed the 

per capita income limits set for beneficiary countries under the program. 

African Growth and Opportunity Act: At the end of 2009, 40 sub-Saharan African 

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

Act (AGOA), and 27 SSA countries were eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits. 

Duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA, including those covered by GSP, were valued at 

$33.7 billion in 2009. U.S. imports under AGOA, exclusive of GSP, were valued at $28.1 

billion in 2009, a 50.2 percent decrease over 2008. The decline in imports under AGOA 

was driven mainly by decreases in the value of U.S. imports of petroleum-related 

products, which made up more than 91 percent of imports under AGOA in 2009. 

Andean Trade Preference Act: The Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), as amended 

by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), provides dutyfree treatment for certain products of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. As a result of 

eligibility reviews, on June 30, 2009, the President did not revoke Ecuador’s eligibility 

for ATPA benefits and did not reinstate ATPA eligibility for Bolivia. U.S. imports under 

ATPA were valued at $9.7 billion in 2009, a drop of 43.7 percent from $17.2 billion in 

2008. U.S. imports under ATPA decreased from all of the beneficiary countries. 

Petroleum-related products accounted for 76 percent of U.S. imports under ATPA in 

2009. Other leading imports under ATPA in 2009 included apparel, copper cathodes, 

fresh cut flowers, asparagus, and pouched tuna. On December 28, 2009, the President 

signed legislation that extended ATPA until December 31, 2010. 

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 of designated 

Caribbean Basin countries. In 2009, products from 18 countries and territories were 

eligible for CBERA preferences. U.S. imports under CBERA were valued at $2.4 billion 

in 2009, a 50.1 percent decline from $4.7 billion in 2008. The decline in 2009 of U.S. 

imports under CBERA 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; also, there were large declines in the prices of energy-related products 

(mineral fuels, methanol, and fuel ethanol), which are major imports from CBERA 

countries. Trinidad and Tobago was the leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA 

in 2009. Mineral fuels, methanol, apparel products, and fuel-grade ethanol ranked as the 

leading U.S. imports under CBERA in 2009. 
xix

WTO and OECD 

WTO developments: In 2009, members of the WTO continued efforts to move the Doha 

Development Agenda (DDA or Doha Round) to its final stage, largely through informal 

bilateral and technical meetings revolving around negotiating “modalities.” These 

modalities are the variables and formulas used in final bilateral negotiations between 

individual member countries; they will affect the scope and extent of tariff and nontariff 

reductions and commitments aimed at providing greater market access for trade in 

agricultural and industrial goods. In regular WTO activities, Pascal Lamy was 

reappointed in April 2009 for a second four-year term as WTO Director-General. In 

addition, Taiwan became a signatory to the plurilateral WTO Agreement on Government 

Procurement in July 2009. 

WTO dispute settlement: Of the 14 requests for dispute-settlement consultations filed 

during 2009, 2 involved the United States as complainant and 3 as the respondent. Of the 

10 new dispute-settlement panels established in 2009, 2 were established at the request of 

the United States, and 6 were established in which the United States was the named 

respondent. Also in 2009, the WTO dispute-settlement system reached its 400th dispute 

case since the establishment of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in 1995. Notable 

among the cases underway in 2009 was the resolution of a long-standing dispute 

concerning market access for a number of Latin American countries under the European 

Union’s banana import regime, a dispute which began in 1996. 

OECD developments: Activities in 2009 in the OECD focused on resisting trade 

protectionism and encouraging countries responding to the global financial and economic 

crisis to adopt policy measures that would not undermine the benefits of open trade. The 

OECD Trade Committee discussed possible measures to support WTO work on trade 

facilitation and “aid for trade,” given the impact of the economic downturn on developing 

countries in particular. The OECD also continued its dialogue over trade openness and 

globalization with major nonmember countries—Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and 

South Africa—through its Enhanced Engagement forum. In addition, the OECD 

continued accession discussions with a number of candidates, including Chile, Estonia, 

Israel, Russia, and Slovenia; Chile became an OECD member in 2010. 

APEC developments: In 2009, members of the APEC forum launched the Pathfinder 

Initiative for Self-Certification of Origin. This program will allow exporters from APEC 

countries to self-certify a product’s origin, a change which is expected to lead to reduced 

export costs. Exporters will not need to apply for and submit the currently required 

Authorized Certificate of Origin. 

Other plurilateral developments: Plurilateral negotiations, ongoing since 2008, 

continued between a number of countries in an effort to reach an Anti-Counterfeiting 

Trade Agreement (ACTA) aimed at providing a framework to fight global infringement 

of IPR, particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy. 
xx

FTA Developments in 2009 

U.S. FTAs in force in 2009: The United States was a party to 11 FTAs as of December 

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

multiparty agreement, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States FTA 

(CAFTA-DR) with the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic, which 

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

Honduras, and Nicaragua in 2006–07, and with respect to Costa Rica in 2009; the U.S.-

Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) (2009); U.S.-Bahrain FTA (2006); U.S.-

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

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

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

FTA developments: On January 1, 2009, the U.S.-Oman FTA entered into force, 

allowing immediate duty-free access to Oman for virtually all U.S. exports of originating 

industrial and consumer products. Likewise, on January 1, 2009, a Presidential 

proclamation implementing CAFTA-DR for Costa Rica became effective. Costa Rica 

was the last of the signatory countries to implement the CAFTA-DR. The U.S.-Peru TPA 

was implemented on February 1, 2009, allowing 80 percent of U.S. industrial and 

consumer goods and more than two-thirds of U.S. farm exports to enter Peru free of duty. 

On November 14, 2009, President Obama affirmed that the United States would join in 

negotiations on a regional trade agreement with Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 

countries, which include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, 

Singapore, and Vietnam. USTR notified Congress on December 14, 2009, of the 

administration’s intent to enter into negotiations with the TPP countries. 

FTA merchandise trade flows with FTA partners: In 2009, total two-way merchandise 

trade between the United States and its FTA partners was $832.5 billion, or about onethird of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to FTA partners decreased 

by 19.4 percent to $357.8 billion and U.S. imports from FTA partners decreased 24.2 

percent to $474.7 billion, which resulted in a $116.8 billion merchandise trade deficit 

with FTA partners, down $64.8 billion from 2008. The U.S. deficit with NAFTA partners 

was $123.5 billion, a decrease of $73.7 billion from 2008. Excluding NAFTA, the United 

States registered a trade surplus with the rest of its FTA partners of $6.7 billion, down 

from $15.6 billion in 2008. U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions accounted for 

15.5 percent of all U.S. imports in 2009. 

NAFTA developments: NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. All of the 

agreement’s provisions were fully implemented as of January 1, 2008, with the exception 

of the NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions. In 2009, the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico implemented two sets of changes to the NAFTA rules of origin—one liberalizing 

NAFTA rules of origin covering approximately $100 billion in annual trilateral trade, the 

other modifying NAFTA rules of origin to reflect changes under the International 

Convention on the Harmonized Commodity and Coding System. There were no new 

submissions on labor matters in 2009 filed under the North American Agreement on 

Labor Cooperation, a supplemental agreement to NAFTA. At the end of 2009, 12 files 

remained active under article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental 
xxi

Cooperation (NAAEC), a supplemental agreement to NAFTA. Four new NAAEC files 

were submitted in 2009. 

NAFTA dispute settlement: In 2009, there was one active chapter 11 case filed against 

the United States by Canadian investors. In 2009, there were two active chapter 11 cases 

filed by U.S. investors against Canada, and one active chapter 11 case filed by U.S. 

investors against Mexico. At year-end, the NAFTA Secretariat listed nine binational 

panels active under chapter 19 regarding antidumping disputes. 

Trade Activities with Major Trade Partners 

European Union 

The European Union (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 $480.5 billion in 2009, accounting for 19.3 percent of U.S. trade with the 

world. U.S. merchandise exports to the EU amounted to $202.4 billion and U.S. 

merchandise imports from the EU were $278.1 billion, resulting in a U.S. merchandise 

trade deficit with the EU of $75.7 billion in 2009. Leading U.S. exports included civil 

aircraft and parts, certain medicaments, blood fractions (e.g., antiserum), petroleum 

products, nonmonetary gold, medical instruments, coal, and passenger motor vehicles. 

Leading U.S. imports were certain medicaments, petroleum products, passenger motor 

vehicles, nucleic acids and their salts, heterocyclic compounds, and civil aircraft and 

parts. The EU was also the United States’ largest trading partner in terms of services in 

2009, accounting for 36.4 percent of U.S. services trade with the world. The United 

States registered a trade surplus in services with the EU of $52.3 billion in 2009. 

Two U.S.-EU trade developments in 2009 are of note. First, the U.S-EU Transatlantic 

Economic Council (TEC) met in October 2009 to discuss regulatory cooperation, 

protection of IPR, secure trade, financial markets, and investment. The TEC also agreed 

to establish a new U.S.-EU Innovation Dialogue to promote cooperation in innovation 

and emerging policy areas. Second, in 2009, the United States and EU also signed 

agreements addressing two long-running WTO disputes regarding the EU banana import 

regime and EU imports of U.S. beef. 

Canada 

In 2009, Canada was the largest single-country U.S. trading partner. U.S. merchandise 

trade with Canada was $396.3 billion that year, accounting for 15.9 percent of U.S. trade 

with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Canada were $171.7 billion, and U.S. 

imports from Canada were valued at $224.6 billion, which resulted in a U.S. trade deficit 

on goods with Canada of $52.9 billion in 2009. Leading U.S. exports to Canada were 

civil aircraft and parts, motor vehicles and parts, and energy products. Leading U.S. 

imports were energy products, motor vehicles and parts, certain medicaments, aluminum, 

 1

 The 27 members of the EU in 2009 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. 
xxii

civil aircraft, paper, and softwood lumber. In 2009, U.S. trade in services with Canada 

was $62.9 billion, approximately 8 percent of total U.S. services trade worldwide. The 

United States registered a trade surplus in services of $20.9 billion with Canada in 2009. 

There were several notable U.S.-Canada trade developments during this period. In April 

2009, the United States began to impose a 10 percent ad valorem tariff on U.S. imports of 

softwood lumber from a number of Canadian provinces in response to an arbitration 

tribunal award brought under the 2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. In 

June 2009, Canada and the United States signed an organic products agreement that 

provides for reciprocal acceptance of each country’s “organic” designation of food 

products. In December 2009, a WTO dispute-settlement panel was established at 

Canada’s request to examine U.S. country-of-origin labeling requirements for all food 

products. Finally, following discussions during 2009, the United States and Canada 

signed a tentative agreement in early 2010 granting reciprocal access to each other’s 

government procurement contracts at the sub-federal level, such as municipalities, states, 

and provinces. 

China 

In 2009, China was the United States’ second largest single-country trading partner, 

based on two-way trade, and accounted for 14.5 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The 

United States’ bilateral deficit with China, which fell by $39.9 billion to $230.4 billion in 

2009, was still higher than the U.S. deficit with any other single-country trading partner. 

U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $65.1 billion in 2009, and were led by 

soybeans; civil aircraft; and ferrous, copper, or aluminum waste and scrap. U.S. imports 

from China amounted to $295.5 billion the same year, and were led by computers and 

their parts, wireless telephones, toys, and video games and their parts. The United States 

ran a services trade surplus with China in 2009, which amounted to $6.7 billion in 2009, 

compared to $6.1 billion the year before. 

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

relations in 2009. Notable areas of U.S. interest were China’s IPR enforcement policies, a 

bilateral “clean energy” initiative, a ban on U.S. pork exports to China, and yuan 

currency valuation issues. 

Mexico 

In 2009, U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico was valued at $282.0 billion, accounting 

for 11.3 percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. exports to Mexico were 

$105.7 billion, and U.S. imports from Mexico were $176.3 billion, resulting in a 

merchandise trade deficit of $70.6 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Mexico included 

refined petroleum products, motor vehicles and parts, corn, soybeans, computer 

components, civil aircraft and parts, plastic articles, and parts for electrical apparatus. 

Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included crude petroleum, motor vehicles and parts, 

televisions, cellular telephones, computers, and medical instruments. The United States 

registered a trade surplus in services of $8.3 billion with Mexico in 2009. 

In January 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation terminated the one-year CrossBorder Trucking Demonstration Project when Congress discontinued its funding. In 

response, the Mexican government implemented new tariffs on U.S. goods. The U.S. 
xxiii

Department of Transportation had previously extended the demonstration program for 

two years, until 2010. 

Japan 

U.S. merchandise trade with Japan was valued at $143.1 billion, accounting for 5.8 

percent of U.S. merchandise trade with the world in 2009. U.S. exports to Japan 

amounted to $47.1 billion, and U.S. imports from Japan were $96.0 billion, resulting in a 

U.S. merchandise trade deficit of $48.9 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were civil 

aircraft and jet parts, corn, pharmaceuticals, soybeans, and wheat. Leading U.S. imports 

from Japan were motor vehicles and parts, printer parts, digital cameras, and airplane and 

jet parts. The U.S. services trade surplus with Japan was $18.3 billion in 2009. 

The U.S.-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 2009, discussions under this framework focused 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 seventh-largest single-country two-way trading 

partner of the United States in 2009, with two-way merchandise trade valued at $65.8 

billion and accounting for 2.6 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. exports to Korea 

were valued at $27.1 billion in 2009, and U.S. imports from Korea totaled $38.8 billion, 

resulting in an $11.7 billion trade deficit with Korea in 2009. Leading U.S. exports to 

Korea in 2009 included civil aircraft, transistors, corn, and ferrous waste and scrap. 

Leading U.S. imports from Korea included cellular phones, automobiles, computer parts 

and accessories (mainly memory modules), and computer chips. The U.S. trade surplus in 

services with Korea was $6.6 billion. 

The U.S.-Korean trade agenda in 2009 was dominated by the question of the U.S.-Korea 

FTA, which was signed in June 2007; agreement on a protocol to resume exports of U.S. 

beef to Korea, which was suspended originally over concerns about bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy in late 2003; and removal of Korea from the USTR Special 301 watch 

list, which identifies countries with which the United States has concerns over IPR 

enforcement. 

Taiwan 

Taiwan was the United States’ 10th largest single-country trading partner in 2009, based 

on two-way trade, and accounted for 1.8 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The U.S. 

merchandise trade deficit with Taiwan narrowed to $11.4 billion in 2009. U.S. 

merchandise exports to Taiwan amounted to $16.7 billion in 2009, and were led by 

semiconductor manufacturing and assembly equipment, computer chips, civil aircraft, 

and corn. U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan amounted to $28.1 billion in 2009, and 

were led by electronic digital integrated circuits, wireless telephones and their parts, 

reception apparatus for navigational radios, parts for data-processing machines, and 

reception apparatuses for televisions. The United States ran a services trade surplus with 
xxiv

Taiwan in 2009; the surplus amounted to $517.0 million in 2009, compared to a $397.0 

million deficit the year before. 

High points of U.S. trade relations with Taiwan during 2009 were USTR’s removal of 

Taiwan from the Special 301 watch list of IPR violators, the provision of U.S. beef and 

beef product companies with more comprehensive market access, and the reform of 

Taiwan’s government procurement practices. 

Brazil 

U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil was valued at $41.7 billion in 2009, accounting for 

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

$22.1 billion, and U.S. imports from Brazil were $19.6 billion, resulting in a U.S. 

merchandise trade surplus of $2.5 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil included civil 

aircraft and parts, refined petroleum products, and coal. Leading U.S. imports from Brazil 

included crude petroleum, pig iron, and civil aircraft (regional jet aircraft). The U.S. 

services trade surplus with Brazil was $7.0 billion in 2009. 

In 2009, USTR and the Brazilian government discussed the possibility of negotiating a 

trade and investment framework agreement. Although no final decision was reached, 

both sides agreed to continue discussions on the subject. On August 31, 2009, WTO 

arbitrators determined the level of countermeasures that Brazil can impose on U.S. trade 

in the WTO dispute settlement case brought by Brazil concerning U.S. subsidies on 

upland cotton. 

India 

U.S. merchandise trade with India was valued at $35.9 billion, accounting for 1.4 percent 

of U.S. merchandise trade with the world in 2009. U.S. exports to India were $14.6 

billion, and U.S. imports from India were $21.2 billion, resulting in a U.S. merchandise 

trade deficit of $6.6 billion. Leading U.S. exports to India included civil aircraft, 

diammonium phosphate (fertilizer), nonmonetary gold, nonindustrial diamonds, and oil 

from coal tar. Leading U.S. imports from India included nonindustrial diamonds, gold 

and platinum jewelry, therapeutic or prophylactic medicaments, pipe for oil and gas 

pipelines, bed linens, and apparel. The United States registered a trade deficit in services 

with India of $2.1 billion. 

During 2009, the United States and India discussed agricultural trade barriers and other 

bilateral economic issues in the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum. The United States 

continued to monitor India’s performance concerning the protection of intellectual 

property. 
xxv

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2009 trade agreement activities 

January

1: The CAFTA-DR FTA enters into force between 

the United States and Costa Rica. 

1: The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement enters 

into force. 

12: The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) 

adopts the dispute panel and Appellate Body 

reports regarding complaints brought by the 

United States (DS340), the EU (DS339), and 

Canada (DS342) concerning China’s measures 

affecting imports of automobile parts. 

15: The United States and Iceland sign a trade 

and investment co-operation forum agreement. 

15: The United States signs a nuclear 

cooperation agreement with the United Arab 

Emirates allowing U.S. exporters to supply 

equipment and services to the UAE’s nuclear 

power industry. 

16: Taiwan is removed from the USTR Special 

301 watch list as a result of an out-of-cycle 

review of intellectual property protection. 

20: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

(DS379) to examine complaints by China 

concerning U.S. definitive antidumping and 

countervailing duties on certain products from 

China. On November 17, 2009, the panel 

chairman informs the DSB that it will be unable to 

issue its final report within six months of the 

panel’s establishment, but expects to complete 

its work by May 2010.

February

1: The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 

enters into force. 

17: President Obama signs legislation 

reauthorizing and modifying the U.S. Trade 

Adjustment Assistance program. 

18:The WTO DSB adopts the dispute panel and 

Appellate Body reports (DS350) regarding 

complaints brought by the EU concerning the 

continued existence and application of "zeroing" 

methodology used by the United States. 

March

17: Mexico increases tariffs on a wide variety of 

U.S. products in retaliation for the United States’ 

cancellation of the pilot trucking program 

operating under NAFTA, which allowed Mexican 

trucks to make international deliveries throughout 

the United States. 

March—Continued

20: The WTO DSB adopts the dispute panel 

(DS362) report regarding complaints brought by 

the United States to examine China’s measures 

affecting the protection and enforcement of 

intellectual property rights. 

20: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

(DS383) to examine complaints by Thailand 

concerning U.S. antidumping measures on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand. 

The DSB subsequently adopts the panel report 

on February 18, 2010. 

27: The United States and Chile reach an 

agreement that allows for the resumption of 

American beef shipments to Chile. 

April

2: The Mexican Carriers’ Trade Association files 

for investor-state arbitration under NAFTA 

dispute-settlement provisions, due to U.S. failure 

to open its market to Mexican trucks. 

7: The United States announces that it is 

imposing 10 percent ad valorem customs duties 

on imports of softwood lumber products from four 

Canadian provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, 

and Saskatchewan) as a result of Canada’s 

failure to cure its breach of the 2006 U.S.-

Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. 

20: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

(DS381) to examine complaints by Mexico 

concerning U.S. measures concerning the 

importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna 

products. 

30: In the annual USTR Special 301 Report on 

intellectual property, USTR adds Canada, 

Algeria, and Indonesia to its priority watch list and 

removes Korea from the watch list. 

May

13: The United States and the European 

Commission sign a memorandum of 

understanding in the beef hormones dispute 

providing U.S. producers additional access to the 

EU market for high-quality beef. 

19: The United States and Angola sign a trade 

and investment framework agreement. 

27: The United States and Egypt sign an 

agreement to deepen and broaden trade and 

investment relations. 
xxvi

June

8: A NAFTA investment arbitration panel 

dismisses all claims against the United States by 

a Canadian mining company. 

26: The United States and Japan sign an 

agreement to implement a mutual customs 

program to speed up border clearances between 

the two countries. 

30: As a result of eligibility reviews, President 

Obama does not revoke Ecuador’s eligibility for 

ATPA benefits and does not reinstate ATPA 

eligibility for Bolivia. 

July

15: Taiwan becomes a signatory to the 

plurilateral WTO Agreement on Government 

Procurement. 

16: The fifth negotiating round of the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) begins 

in Morocco. Participants include Australia, 

Canada, the European Union (EU), Japan, South 

Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, 

Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States. 

20: The United States and India sign a 

technology safeguards agreement on the use of 

U.S.-licensed components on spacecraft 

launched from Indian facilities. 

27: The U.S.-China Strategic and Economic 

Dialogue takes place in Washington, DC. Several 

topics are discussed, including sustainable and 

balanced economic growth, the global financial 

system, and promoting trade and investment 

between the two countries. 

28: The United States renews import restrictions 

against Burma, also known as Myanmar. 

31: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

(DS392) to examine complaints by China about 

U.S. measures affecting imports of poultry from 

China. 

August

4–6: The United States holds the eighth annual 

U.S.-Sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic 

Cooperation Forum in Nairobi, Kenya.

5: The United States and Mauritius begin 

negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. 

August—Continued

31: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body 

(DS322) and compliance panel reports to 

examine complaints brought by Japan 

concerning measures relating to "zeroing" 

methodology and sunset reviews used by the 

United States. 

31: The Arbitrator’s decision was circulated in the 

case of the WTO dispute panel (DS267) 

arbitration regarding complaints brought by Brazil 

concerning U.S. subsidies on upland cotton. 

September 

11: The President signs a determination to apply 

an increased duty to all imports of passenger 

vehicle and light truck tires from China for a 

period of three years to remedy a market 

disruption caused by a surge in tire imports. 

25: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

(DS382) to examine complaints by Brazil 

concerning U.S. antidumping administrative 

reviews and other measures related to imports of 

orange juice from Brazil. 

28: An arbitration panel at the London Court of 

International Arbitration rejects Canada’s claim 

that its offer to pay the United States serves to 

remedy Canada’s breach of the 2006 U.S.-

Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. 

October

17: The United States and the Maldives sign a 

Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. 

22: Taiwan signs an import protocol with the 

United States relaxing its restrictions on imports 

of U.S. beef. 

26: U.S. and EU representatives participate in 

the fourth meeting of the Transatlantic Economic 

Council, focusing on emerging economic sectors. 

29: During the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 

Commerce and Trade meetings, China agrees to 

eliminate the mandatory 70 percent local-content 

requirement on wind-powered turbines. 

November

5: The United States requests consultations 

under NAFTA dispute-settlement procedures in 

an effort to have Mexico drop its WTO disputesettlement case (DS381) concerning measures 

concerning the importation, marketing, and sale 

of tuna and tuna products, involving whether tuna 

exports from Mexico to the United States can be 

labeled "dolphin safe." 
xxvii

November—Continued

9: China’s Ministry of Commerce initiates a 

domestic trade remedy case brought by the 

Chinese automobile association on imports of 

U.S. cars benefiting from subsidy programs 

provided to the U.S. automobile industry under 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. 

11: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation members 

meet in Singapore to review progress toward the 

goals set out in the 1994 Bogor Declaration. 

Members approve nonbinding principles 

endorsing the free flow of services across 

borders. 

17: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body 

report and panel report as modified by the 

Appellate Body (DS360) in a complaint brought 

by the United States concerning India’s additional 

and extra-additional duties on imports from the 

United States. 

19: The WTO DSB establishes a single dispute 

panel to examine complaints by Canada (DS384) 

and Mexico (DS386) concerning U.S. country-oforigin labeling requirements (COOL 

requirements). 

19: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute panel 

(DS389) to examine complaints brought by the 

United States concerning EU measures affecting 

poultry meat and poultry meat products from the 

United States. 

December

1: The EU Lisbon Treaty enters into force. 

2: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

delays for at least two years a congressional 

mandate to scan 100 percent of U.S.-bound 

container cargo by 2012. 

3: The panel chairman of a WTO dispute panel 

(DS316), established July 20, 2005, to examine 

complaints brought by the United States 

concerning measures affecting trade in large civil 

aircraft, informs the DSB that it will be unable to 

issue its final report before the end of April 2010. 

13: The U.S. Senate approves the omnibus 

appropriations bill, which includes a provision to 

suspend a rule requiring cash payment before 

shipping U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. 

14: USTR notifies Congress of the 

administration’s intent to enter into negotiations 

with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 

countries.

December—Continued

15: The EU and a number of Latin American 

countries sign an agreement resolving a longrunning dispute over the EU banana import 

regime. 

16: The chairman of a WTO dispute panel 

(DS353), established February 17, 2006, to 

examine complaints brought by the EU 

concerning its second complaint regarding 

measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft, 

informs the DSB that it will be unable to issue its 

final report as estimated in December 2009, but 

expects to issue its interim report to the parties in 

June 2010. 

18: The United States and China reach an 

agreement that terminates dozens of Chinese 

subsidies that had been supporting the export of 

“famous brands” of Chinese merchandise and 

other products. 

21: The WTO DSB defers the establishment of a 

panel requested by China (DS399) concerning 

U.S. measures affecting imports of certain 

passenger vehicle and light truck tires. The DSB 

establishes a panel on January 19, 2010. 

21: The WTO Appellate Body circulates its report 

on a complaint brought by the United States 

(DS363) concerning China’s measures affecting 

trading rights and distribution services for certain 

publications and audiovisual entertainment 

products. The report upholds the dispute panel’s 

conclusions that China must bring any measures 

found to be inconsistent with China’s WTO 

Accession Protocol, China’s Accession Working 

Party Report, the GATS, and the GATT 1994 into 

conformity with China’s obligations. The DSB 

adopts the dispute panel and Appellate Body 

reports on January 19, 2010. 

21: WTO DSB establishes a single dispute panel 

to examine complaints brought by the United 

States (DS394), the EU (DS395), and Mexico 

(DS398) concerning China’s measures related to 

the export of various raw materials. 

21: The panel chairman of a WTO dispute panel, 

established September 23, 2008, to examine 

complaints brought by the United States 

(DS375), Japan (DS376), and Chinese Taipei 

(DS379) concerning EU tariff treatment of certain 

information technology products, informs the 

DSB that it will be unable to issue its final report 

as estimated in December 2009 due to the 

complexity of the matter and the involvement of 

three complainants, but expects to issue its final 

report to parties by the end of April 2010. 
xxviii

December—Continued

22: The U.S. Congress extends the GSP and 

ATPA for Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru for one 

year. 

23: The United States designates Mauritania as a 

beneficiary country under the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act and terminates the benefits of 

Guinea, Madagascar, and Niger. 

Sources: Compiled from official and private 

sources, including the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. 

Trade Representative, U.S. Department of 

Treasury, World Trade Organization, Mexican 

Ministry of Economy, Inside U.S. Trade, and 

International Trade Daily. 
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 2009.1

 Trade agreement activities during 

2009 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), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum; 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, including U.S. government reports, notices, and news 

releases, and 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, including 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. These data were compiled by the Commission using 

sources 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 20092

 

The direction of U.S. economic activity shifted substantially during 2009, from 

contraction to expansion. The economic downturn that began in late 2007, which was 

precipitated by the asset price bubble and was particularly notable in the housing sector, 

continued at the beginning of 2009.3

 However, after four straight quarters of decline, the 

U.S. economy grew in the third quarter of 2009, driven by improvements in the financial 

sector, monetary and fiscal stimulus policies,4

 and economic recovery in major emerging 

 1

 This is the 61st 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

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

Reserve System, Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, February 24, 2010, 1–2, 5–6, 8–9, 11–19, 21, 31–

33. 3

 White House, Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), Economic Report of the President, February 

2010, 39. 4

 On February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

“At an estimated cost of $787 billion, the Act is the largest countercyclical fiscal action in American history.” 

CEA, Economic Report of the President, February 2010, 51. 
1-2 

economies. Although overall U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) decreased in 2009 by 

2.4 percent from the year before (figure 1.1)—driven by downturns in business 

investment and exports—GDP increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent and 5.9 percent 

in the third and fourth quarters, respectively (figure 1.2).5

 These quarterly increases 

reflected increased consumer and business spending, as well as a reduction in the 

business inventory liquidation that had marked the early part of 2009. Consumer 

spending was, in part, supported by a recovery in the financial markets in the latter part of 

2009, although consumer credit availability remained limited. 

The U.S. economic downturn reduced U.S. import demand in 2009. At the same time, the 

rapid global spread of the recession reduced demand for U.S. exports.6

 Overall, the global 

economy declined by an estimated 0.8 percent in 2009, the first time world output had 

declined in over a half of a century.7

 The decline did not, however, affect all economies 

equally: advanced economies contracted by 3.2 percent, whereas emerging and 

developing economies expanded by 2.1 percent.8

 Among major U.S. trading partners, 

output in the European Union (EU) euro area contracted by 3.9 percent, in Japan by 5.3 

percent, in the United Kingdom by 4.8 percent, in Canada by 2.6 percent, and in Mexico 

by 6.8 percent, whereas output in China and India grew by 8.7 percent and 5.6 percent, 

respectively, in 2009.9

 As a result of the overall decline in global demand, world trade 

flows fell by over 12 percent in 2009, exacerbated by constraints on the supply of trade 

finance.10 U.S. merchandise exports and imports fell 17.6 percent and 25.9 percent, 

respectively, in the first quarter of 2009 compared to the last quarter of 2008, but steadily 

increased throughout the rest of 2009, registering quarterly increases of 10.9 percent and 

7.4 percent, respectively, in the last quarter of 2009.11 These increases were driven by 

improved economic performance as well as increased demand in emerging market 

economies, particularly in Asia. However, U.S. trade flows in 2009 did not attain the precrisis levels registered in 2008.12

Exchange-Rate Trends13

The U.S. dollar depreciated 4.5 percent in 2009 against a basket of major foreign 

currencies on a trade-weighted basis,14 and by 7.0 percent according to a broader dollar 

 5

 USDOC, BEA, “GDP Rises in the Fourth Quarter,” February 26, 2010. 6

 CEA, Economic Report of the President, February 2010, 29. 7

 CEA, Economic Report of the President, February 2010, 81; IMF, World Economic Outlook Update, 

January 26, 2010. 8

 IMF, “World Economic Outlook Update,” January 26, 2010. 9

 IMF, “World Economic Outlook Update,” January 26, 2010. The euro area includes 16 EU member 

states—Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the 

Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain—that have adopted the euro as their common currency 

within an economic and monetary union. 10 CEA, Economic Report of the President, February 2010, 89; IMF, “World Economic Outlook 

Update,” January 26, 2010. 11 Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

12 Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

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

Reserve System, Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, February 24, 2010, 29. 14 According to the IMF, these major foreign currencies include the euro, the Canadian dollar, the 

Japanese yen, and the British pound. IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2009, 29 and figure 49. 
1-3 

FIGURE 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, in percent change, 2000–09 

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent, annual rate

Source: USDOC. 

FIGURE 1.2 U.S. real gross domestic product, quarterly, in percent change, 2008–09 

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

2008-Q1 2008-Q2 2008-Q3 2008-Q4 2009-Q1 2009-Q2 2009-Q3 2009-Q4

Percent, annual rate

Source: USDOC. 
1-4 

index.15 Although in the first quarter of 2009 the U.S. dollar continued the trend from 

2008 and appreciated against most major currencies, it depreciated thereafter, as global 

economic activity improved and investors shifted away from safer U.S. securities. For the 

year as a whole, the dollar depreciated 14.0 percent against the Canadian dollar, 10.9 

percent against the British pound, 9.2 percent against the euro, 7.4 percent against the 

Mexican peso, 0.2 percent against the Japanese yen, and 0.1 percent against the Chinese 

yuan (figure 1.3), as Chinese authorities maintained a largely fixed exchange rate against 

the dollar throughout 2009. The dollar also depreciated markedly against the currencies 

of commodity-producing countries, such as Australia and Brazil, where rising commodity 

prices buoyed economic performance.

Balance of Payments16

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

income, and net unilateral current transfers—decreased from $706.1 billion in 2008 to 

$419.9 billion in 2009, which was the smallest deficit since 2001.17 As a share of U.S. 

GDP, the deficit decreased to 2.9 percent in 2009 from 4.9 percent in 2008. The decline 

in the current-account deficit was due to a large decline in the goods deficit, which 

outweighed declines in the surpluses on services and income. The deficit on international 

trade in goods decreased 38.5 percent to $517.0 billion from $840.3 billion. The surplus 

on international trade in services decreased 4.1 percent to $138.4 billion from $144.3 

billion. The surplus on income decreased 24.7 percent to $89.0 billion from $118.2 

billion.18 Net unilateral current transfers to foreign residents increased 1.4 percent to 

 

 15 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 March 9, 

2010). 16 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 in order to bring the data in line with the concepts and definitions used to prepare the 

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

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

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

BOP-basis and Census-basis data, see USDOC, BEA, Christopher L. Bach, “A Guide to the U.S. 

International Transactions Accounts and the U.S. International Investment Position Accounts,” February 

2010. 17 Preliminary estimate. 

18 The balance on 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). 
1-5 

FIGURE 1.3 Indices of dollar exchange rates for selected major currencies and broad measures, monthly, 2009a

85

90

95

100

105

110

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

Euro Pound Yen Yuan Peso Canadian dollar Broad dollar index

Jan 2009 = 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 in 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. 

$130.2 billion from $128.4 billion.19 Net financial inflows were $197.8 billion, down 

from $505.1 billion in 2008.20

The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services decreased for the third year in a row, from 

$695.9 billion in 2008 to $378.6 billion in 2009. Similar to the reversal in GDP growth 

during the year, the U.S. trade deficit for goods and services narrowed in the first half of 

2009 as imports declined more than exports, and increased in the second half of the year 

as imports increased more than exports.21

 19 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). 20 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. 21 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, 

February 24, 2010, 17. 
1-6 

The $517.0 billion deficit on goods was the smallest recorded since 2002. U.S. exports of 

goods decreased to $1,045.5 billion from $1,277.0 billion, as exports in all major product 

categories dropped substantially. Similarly, imports of goods decreased to $1,562.6 

billion from $2,117.2 billion, as all major categories dropped substantially. Mineral fuels’ 

share of the U.S. merchandise deficit declined to 33.2 percent in 2009 from 42.8 percent 

in 2008, similar to its 33.5 percent share in 2007.22

The U.S. surplus on services decreased to $138.4 billion in 2009 from $144.3 billion in 

2008.23 Services exports decreased to $509.2 billion from $549.6 billion in the same 

period. The following categories of services exports posted decreases: travel, “other” 

transportation (such as freight and port services), royalties and license fees, passenger 

fares, and “other” private services (such as business, professional, and technical services, 

insurance services, and financial services). These decreases were partly offset by 

increases in transfers under U.S. military agency sales contracts, and in U.S. government 

miscellaneous nonmilitary services. Services imports decreased to $370.8 billion from 

$405.3 billion. The following categories of services imports posted decreases: “other” 

transportation, travel, passenger fares, royalties and license fees, direct defense 

expenditures, and “other” private services. These decreases were partly offset by a small 

increase in U.S. government miscellaneous nonmilitary services.24

U.S. Trade in Goods in 2009

U.S. merchandise exports decreased to $936.8 billion (6.6 percent of GDP) in 2009 from 

$1,169.8 billion (8.1 percent of GDP) in 2008 (figure 1.4).25 U.S. merchandise imports 

decreased to $1,549.2 billion (10.9 percent of GDP) in 2009 from $2,090.5 billion (14.5 

percent of GDP) in 2008. In each of the three years preceding 2009, both exports and 

imports grew, and export growth was greater than import growth. In 2009, because of the 

economic downturn, both exports and imports declined, and U.S. imports declined faster 

than U.S. exports, by 25.9 percent and 19.9 percent, respectively. However, reflecting the 

overall shift in economic activity, quarterly exports and imports grew steadily throughout 

2009. 

U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category 

Exports 

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

in terms of Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) group, accounted for 39.2 

percent of exports in 2009 (appendix table A.1). U.S. exports of machinery and transport 

 22 Data are for Harmonized System (HS) Chapter 27. Official statistics of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 23 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. 24 Unless otherwise indicated, information in this paragraph is from USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International 

Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2009,” March 18, 2010. 25 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 16. 
1-7 

FIGURE 1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2007–09 

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. 

equipment were valued at $367.3 billion in 2009, down 23.0 percent from $477.1 billion 

in 2008. Approximately 60 percent of the total drop in exports in 2009 was accounted for 

by decreased U.S. exports of goods from the following two SITC groups: machinery and 

transport equipment, and manufactured goods classified chiefly by material (e.g., 

products manufactured from leather, rubber, paper, and iron and steel). No SITC group 

registered an increase in exports from 2008 to 2009. 

Imports 

U.S. imports of goods in all SITC groups decreased between 2008 and 2009, resulting in 

a decline of $541.3 billion, or a 25.9 percent decrease, in total imports over 2008. More 

than 65 percent of the decline in imports in 2009 was accounted for by decreased U.S. 

imports of goods from the following two SITC groups: machinery and transport 

equipment, and mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials. U.S. imports of 

machinery and transport equipment declined 21.0 percent, from $718.3 billion in 2008 to 

$567.5 billion in 2009, which accounted for 36.6 percent of total U.S. imports in 2009. 

U.S. imports of mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials were valued at $257.3 

billion in 2009, down 45.1 percent from $468.4 billion in 2008. This SITC group 

accounted for 16.6 percent of total U.S. imports in 2009, down from 22.4 percent in 

2008. 

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

countries declined 46.4 percent, from $110.0 billion in 2008 to $59.0 billion in 2009, or 

3.9 percent of total U.S. imports during the year. Duty-free imports totaled $19.8 billion 

under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program (appendix table A.11), 

$28.1 billion (excluding GSP imports) under the African Growth and Opportunity Act 

(AGOA) (appendix table A.13), and $9.7 billion under the Andean Trade Preference Act 
1-8 

(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 $2.4 

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

agreement provisions also declined in 2009 to $240.3 billion, or 15.4 percent of total U.S. 

imports.26

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Leading Partners 27

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

(exports and imports) in 2009.28 The European Union (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. 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 2009. 

China alone accounted for 37.6 percent ($230.4 billion) of the total U.S. merchandise 

deficit of $612.4 billion in 2009. North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 

partners Canada and Mexico together accounted for 20.2 percent ($123.5 billion) of this 

deficit. The U.S. trade deficit with China declined from $270.3 billion in 2008 to $230.4 

billion in 2009. U.S. exports to China declined less (3.1 percent) than U.S. imports from 

China (12.4 percent) over the 2008–09 period.

U.S. Trade in Services in 200929

The U.S. surplus in cross-border private services trade decreased 6.1 percent in 2009 to 

$151.6 billion (figure 1.7),30 primarily due to a decline in exports. This is the first annual 

decrease in the U.S. services trade surplus since 2003. Similarly, U.S. exports and 

imports of services posted their first declines since 2001. U.S. cross-border exports of 

private services decreased 8.4 percent, from $525.8 billion in 2008 to $481.8 billion in 

2009, while U.S. cross-border imports of services decreased 9.4 percent, from $364.4 

 26 See chap. 2 of this report for further information on the trade preference programs and chap. 4 for 

information on U.S. FTAs. 27 See chap. 5 for further information on U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners, i.e., the 

EU, Canada, China, Mexico, and other countries. Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are also leading trading 

partners of the United States but are not discussed here because most of these countries’ trade with the United 

States consists of petroleum and petroleum products. 28 Leading U.S. exports to and imports from these partners are presented in appendix tables A.21 

through A.47. 29 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. In these 

national accounts data, “cross-border transactions” occur when firms resident in one country provide services 

to consumers in another, with people, information, or money crossing U.S. boundaries in the process. Crossborder transactions appear explicitly as imports and exports in the balance of payments. U.S. firms also 

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. 30 USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 18, 2010, table 3a. 
1-9 

TABLE 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and with the world, 2009, billions of dollars 

Major trading partner 

U.S.

Exports

U.S.

Imports Trade balance

Two-way trade

(exports plus 

imports)

EU–27 202.4 278.1 –75.7 480.5

Canada 171.7 224.6 –52.9 396.3

China 65.1 295.5 –230.4 360.7

Mexico 105.7 176.3 –70.6 282.0

Japan 47.1 96.0 –48.9 143.1

Korea 27.1 38.8 –11.7 65.8

Taiwan 16.7 28.1 –11.4 44.8

Brazil 22.1 19.6 2.5 41.7

India 14.6 21.2 –6.6 35.9

All others 264.2 370.9 –106.7 635.1

 World 936.7 1,549.2 –612.4 2,485.9

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

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

FIGURE 1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2009 

EU-27, 22%

Canada, 18%

China, 7% Mexico, 11%

Japan, 5%

Korea, 3%

Taiwan, 2%

Brazil, 2%

India, 2%

All others, 28%

Total = $937 billion 

Source: USDOC. 
1-10 

FIGURE 1.6 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2009 

China, 19%

EU-27, 18%

Mexico, 11% Canada, 14%

Japan, 6%

Korea, 3%

Taiwan, 2%

India, 1%

Brazil, 1%

All others, 25%

Total = $1,549 billion 

Source: USDOC. 

FIGURE 1.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2007–09a

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, table 3a, March 18, 2010. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 
1-11 

billion to $330.2 billion during the same period. Exports and imports declined in most 

services categories, with the exception of education and insurance services. 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 

2009, accounting for 23.8 percent of the total, followed by exports of travel services,31

which accounted for 19.6 percent of total U.S. cross-border services exports. Exports of 

most services declined from 2008 to 2009, although exports in three categories—

insurance services, education, and business, professional, and technical services—

increased. Exports of education and business, professional, and technical services, 

however, experienced declining growth rates from 2008 to 2009, much like other 

services. In the case of insurance services, growth in 2009 was higher than in 2007 and 

2008, although growth for the 3-year period was lower than the 10-year trend. Like other 

services, these three categories likely have been affected by the global recession. 

Exports of services that involve the movement of goods or people saw the biggest 

declines. Exports of port services and freight services decreased 26.1 and 20.0 percent, 

respectively. The lower volume of merchandise trade led to a decrease in U.S. exports of 

port and freight services, while lower fuel prices also contributed to the decrease in U.S. 

port services exports.32 Travel services and passenger fares33 decreased 14.4 and 15.0 

percent, respectively, as the global recession decreased demand for travel. 

Imports

Two service categories—business, professional, and technical services and travel 

services—led U.S. cross-border services imports in 2009, each accounting for about 15 

percent of the total. U.S. imports in all service categories, declined from 2008 to 2009, 

except for insurance services and education, which saw growth of 11.8 and 8.7 percent, 

respectively. As with exports, the categories with the largest declines were those services 

that involve the movement of goods or people. Port services decreased 25.0 percent, 

reflecting the decrease in merchandise trade and fuel prices,34 while freight transportation 

imports decreased 23.7 percent as U.S. merchandise imports fell. Travel services and 

passenger fares decreased 8.4 and 20.3 percent, respectively. Imports of financial services 

also declined significantly—by 21.1 percent. 

 31 Travel services comprise purchases of goods and services by U.S. persons traveling abroad and 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. 32 Weinberg and Tenentes, “U.S. International Transactions,” July 2009, 61. 33 Fares received by U.S. carriers from foreign residents for travel between the United States and foreign 

countries and between two foreign points. 34 Weinberg and Tenentes, “U.S. International Transactions,” July 2009, 61. 
1-12 

U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners 

The EU was the United States’ largest export market and largest import supplier of 

services in 2009 (table 1.2), accounting for 36.1 percent of total U.S. services exports and 

36.8 percent of total U.S. services imports (figures 1.8 and 1.9).35 Canada and Japan 

followed the EU as the second- and third- largest markets for U.S. services in 2009. 

Among its major trading partners, the United States maintained a regional services trade 

surplus with the EU, as well as bilateral services trade surpluses with Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, Brazil, China, Korea, and Taiwan. By contrast, the United States posted a 

services trade deficit of $2.1 billion with India. Though industry-specific data by trading 

partner are not yet available for 2009, the U.S. services trade deficit with India has 

historically been driven by the outsourcing of information technology (IT) services by 

U.S. firms, resulting in higher imports of computer and data processing services.36 In 

addition to these major trading partners that are covered in this report,37 Australia also 

ranks as a major services trading partner; services exports to Australia were $11.9 billion 

in 2009, and services imports were $5.3 billion, yielding a U.S. services trade surplus of 

$6.6 billion. 

TABLE 1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2009,a billions of dollars 

Major trading partner 

U.S. 

Exports 

U.S. 

Imports Trade balance 

Two-way trade 

(exports plus 

imports) 

EU-27 173.8 121.5 52.3 295.3 

Canada 41.9 21.0 20.9 62.9 

Japan 39.7 21.4 18.3 61.1 

Mexico 21.7 13.4 8.3 35.1 

China 15.3 8.5 6.8 23.8 

India 9.9 12.0 –2.1 21.9 

Korea 13.0 6.3 6.6 19.3 

Brazil 11.8 4.9 7.0 16.7 

Taiwan 6.4 5.9 0.5 12.3 

All others 148.2 115.3 33.0 263.5 

 World 481.7 330.2 151.6 811.9 

Source: USDOC. 

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

 a Data are preliminary. 

 35 In terms of single countries, the United Kingdom (a member of the EU) is the United States’ largest 

export market and largest import supplier of private services. 36 USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International Services: Cross-Border Trade 1986–2008, and Services Supplied 

through Affiliates, 1986–2007,” October 30, 2009, table 7a. 37 See chap. 5. 
1-13 

Canada, 9%

Japan, 8%

Mexico, 4%

China, 3%

Korea, 3%

Brazil, 2%

India, 2%

Taiwan, 1%

All others, 31%

EU-27, 36%

Total = $482 billion

All others, 35%

Japan, 6% EU-27, 37%

Canada, 6%

Mexico, 4%

India, 4%

China, 3%

Korea, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

Brazil, 1%

Total = $330 billion

FIGURE 1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2009a

 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, table 12, March 18, 2010. 

 a Data are preliminary. 

FIGURE 1.9 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2009a

 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, table 12, March 18, 2010. 

a

 Data 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 

2009. It covers import relief laws, trade adjustment assistance, unfair trade laws, and 

certain other trade provisions, 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 global safeguards provided for in sections 201–204 of the Trade Act of 1974, 

China safeguards provided for in section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, and safeguards 

provided for in various bilateral free trade agreements involving the United States. 

The Commission conducted one safeguard investigation during 2009 under the section 

421 China safeguards provision with respect to imports of certain passenger vehicle and 

light truck tires from China. The Commission made an affirmative determination of 

market disruption and proposed that the President impose higher tariffs on imports of the 

subject tires from China.1

 Following receipt of the Commission’s report, 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

 The Commission instituted the investigation 

following receipt of a petition on April 24, 2009, from the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

The United States provides trade adjustment assistance (TAA) to assist U.S. workers, 

manufacturing firms, farmers, and communities adversely affected by import competition 

 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. 
2-2

or production shifts to foreign countries.3 In 2009, TAA comprised the following 

programs: TAA for Workers, TAA for Firms, TAA for Farmers, and TAA for 

Communities. These programs are described separately below. 

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 (ARRA, Pub. L. 111-5). This new legislation reauthorized and changed 

certain provisions of the TAA programs for workers, firms, and farmers as of May 18, 

2009, and created the TAA for Communities program. The TGAAA extended the TAA 

programs until December 31, 2010.4

 

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).5

 Geared to 

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.6

In general, changes to worker benefits and certification criteria as a result of the TGAAA 

apply only to workers covered by petitions filed on or after May 18, 2009 (the new TAA 

for Workers program). The new TAA for Workers program also expanded the list of 

groups of workers that may be certified for program benefits and services.7

Key benefits and services available under the new TAA for Workers program are: 

 Employment and case management services: includes skill assessments, career 

counseling, supportive services, and information on training. 

 Training: up to 156 weeks of full-time or part-time training. 

 Trade readjustment allowances: up to 156 weeks of cash payments for workers 

enrolled in full-time training within 26 weeks of their trade-related layoff or 

certification, whichever is later. 

 3

 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 TAA programs. CEA, Economic 

Report of the President, 2009, box 8-2, 232–33; Topoleski, “TAA for Workers,” February 20, 2008. 4

 USDOL, “FY 2011 Congressional Budget Justification, Employment and Training Administration: 

Overview,” 10, n.d. (accessed April 20, 2010). 5

 States serve as agents to the USDOL in administering the TAA for Workers program. USDOL, ETA, 

“State Reporting Requirements,” January 7, 2010. 6

 USDOL, ETA, “Trade Act Program: TAA for Workers: What’s New,” March 26, 2010. 7

 New groups of workers that may be certified under the new TAA program include workers in firms 

that supply services; workers whose firms have shifted production to any foreign country; workers in public 

agencies; workers whose firms produce component parts of a finished article produced by their customer(s); 

workers in firms that supply testing, packaging, maintenance and transportation services to companies with 

TAA-certified workers; and workers whose firms are identified in a USITC “injury” determination. USDOL, 

ETA, “Changes to TAA program—Questions and Answers,” December 28, 2009. 
2-3

 Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC): a tax credit covering 80 percent of the 

worker’s monthly premium for qualified health insurance.8

 Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance: a wage subsidy for up to two years 

that is available to workers age 50 or over who get reemployed at a reduced 

salary. Expands the benefits that were available under Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance of the old TAA program. 

 Job search allowance: for costs of a job search outside an eligible worker’s local 

area. 

 Relocation allowance: for costs of relocating to a job outside an eligible worker’s 

local area.9

To obtain TAA reemployment services and benefits, a group of workers10 must first file a 

petition with USDOL’s Trade Adjustment Assistance program requesting certification as 

workers adversely affected by foreign trade.11 If the worker group meets the necessary 

group eligibility criteria, a certification will be issued.12 Each worker in the group may 

then individually apply at state workforce agencies or through local “One Stop Career 

Centers” to determine individual TAA eligibility for services and benefits.13

The USDOL instituted investigations in response to 4,683 petitions for TAA it received 

during 2009. Of that number, it issued 2,419 certifications for TAA and denied 561 

petitions.14 USDOL previously stated that approximately 80,000 trade-affected workers 

receive TAA benefits in any given year.15 However, in July 2009 the USDOL stated that 

it was “experiencing a sharp increase in petitions for eligibility for the program.”16 

Assistance for Farmers

TAA for Farmers is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) through 

the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Under the program, the USDA provides 

technical assistance and cash benefits to eligible producers of raw agricultural 

commodities who have been hurt by import competition.17 The TAA for Farmers 

 8

 An increase in the amount of the HCTC entered into effect beginning in May 2009 and applies to all 

recipients, regardless of when their petition was filed. USDOL, ETA, “Trade Act Program: TAA for 

Workers: What’s New,” March 26, 2010. 9

 USDOL, ETA, Getting Back to Work After a Trade-Related Layoff, (accessed April 20, 2010). 10 A petition may be filed by a group of three or more workers, by a company or public agency official, 

by state one-stop operators or partners (including state employment security agencies and dislocated worker 

units), or by a union or other duly authorized representative of such workers. The workers on whose behalf a 

petition is filed must be or have been employed at the firm or subdivision identified in the petition. USDOL, 

ETA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance Application Process,” December 31, 2009. 11 A copy of the petition must also be sent to the TAA coordinator or the dislocated worker office of the 

state in which the layoff occurred. USDOL, ETA, “Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),” April 

2009. 12 USDOL, ETA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance Application Process,” December 31, 2009. 13 Ibid. 

14 Because of the timing of the application process, the adverse trade impact cited in some of the 

petitions occurred in 2008. Also because of the timing of the process, not all of the investigations instituted in 

2009 were completed that year. USDOL, ETA, “Search for Trade Adjustment Assistance Cases,” March 31, 

2010. 15 USDOL, “2009 Congressional Budget Justification: ETA,” 13, n.d. (accessed April 20, 2010). 16 USDOL, ETA, “What’s New: Notice to Petitioners,” July 2, 2009, (accessed March 11, 2010). 17 USDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March 2010, 1. 
2-4

program was in effect from October 1, 2002, through December 31, 2007, when its 

statutory authority expired. In 2009, the TGAAA reauthorized and modified the TAA for 

Farmers program. The new TAA for Farmers program was launched March 1, 2010.18

Under the new TAA for Farmers program, U.S. producers of raw agricultural 

commodities, including farmers, ranchers, fish farmers, and fishermen, may be eligible to 

receive technical training and cash benefits when the Administrator of FAS determines 

that increased imports have contributed importantly to a greater than 15 percent decrease 

in one or more of the following measures of their commodities: (1) the national average 

price; (2) the quantity of production; (3) the value of production; or (4) cash receipts, 

compared to the average of the three preceding marketing years.19

To become eligible for benefits, a group of three or more producers or a commodity 

organization may request, on behalf of producers in their state or group of states, that a 

commodity be certified as eligible by submitting a petition to FAS. To be eligible, a 

commodity must be found 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.20

Following a commodity certification, each producer may then individually apply for 

training and benefits at his or her local Farm Service Agency center.21

TAA for Farmers program benefits include cash payments and free technical training on 

how to develop and implement business adjustment plans. Producers who develop an 

approved business plan are eligible to receive up to $4,000 as payment toward 

implementing the plan or developing a long-term business adjustment plan, and are 

subsequently eligible to receive an additional cash payment of up to $8,000 to be applied 

toward implementing the plan. A producer may not receive more than $12,000 during the 

36-month period following certification of a group petition.22 

Assistance for Firms

 

TAA for Firms is administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) through 

the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The TAA for Firms program is 

managed by a national network of 11 nonprofit Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers 

(TAACs). TAACs, typically sponsored by universities or nonprofit organizations, are the 

primary point of contact for firms during the certification and adjustment proposal 

processes under the TAA program.23 The TGAAA modified the TAA for Firms program 

and expanded the potential pool of clients significantly by allowing service industry firms 

the opportunity to apply for TAA.24

 18 USDA, “USDA Launches Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program,” March 1, 2010; 75 

Fed. Reg. 11513 (March 11, 2010). 19 USDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March 2010, 1. 20 USDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March 2010, 1. 21 USDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, Frequently Asked Questions,” September 15, 

2009; USDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March 2010, 1. 22 USDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March 2010, 1. 23 USDOC, EDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: About Us,” n.d. (accessed April 16, 2010). 24 USDOC, “Congress Makes Changes to Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program,” n.d. 

(accessed April 16, 2010). 
2-5

The TAA for Firms program provides financial assistance in the form of matching funds 

to help eligible import-impacted companies producing articles or services.25 The 

matching funds are intended to help firms offset the costs of projects aimed at improving 

their competitive positions. Funds may be applied toward the cost of consultants, 

engineers, designers, or industry experts for improvement projects in areas such as 

manufacturing, engineering, marketing, information technology, and quality.26 

Assistance for Communities 

Community TAA (TAA for Communities), a new program established by the TGAAA, is 

also administered by the USDOC through the EDA.27 The TAA for Communities 

program is aimed at helping to create and retain jobs by providing project grants to U.S. 

communities adversely impacted by international trade. Grants of up to $5 million under 

the program can be used to support a wide range of technical, planning, and infrastructure 

projects to help communities adapt to pressing trade impact issues and diversify their 

economies.28

To be eligible to apply, communities must be certified under the TAA for Workers, TAA 

for Farmers, or TAA for Firms programs. In addition, EDA must make a determination 

that the community is significantly impacted by trade.29 Applications are to be 

competitively evaluated based on the extent to which they address the following criteria: 

 Support for small and medium-sized communities, defined as communities with 

a population of 100,000 or less. 

 Assist the most severely impacted communities, in terms of the number of 

workers in the community that are receiving assistance from TAA programs. 

 Deliver a high return on investment in terms of creating and saving jobs, 

leveraging public-private partnerships, and using best practices in project 

management. 

 Support regionalism, innovation, and entrepreneurship by strengthening regional 

cluster strategies and fostering technology commercialization. 

 25 According to the USDOC, “we work with a variety of manufacturers and for some, imports represent 

only a minor challenge. For others, they pose a serious threat. Regardless of the degree of impact, a firm may 

be eligible if it experienced sales and employment declines at least partially due to imports over the last two 

years.” USDOC, EDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: Frequently Asked Questions,” n.d. 

(accessed March 11, 2010). 26 TAA pays for half of the cost of these services, up to $150,000 in projects with a maximum TAA 

share of $75,000. Actual levels of assistance depend on a variety of factors. USDOC, EDA, “Trade 

Adjustment Assistance for Firms: Program Benefits,” n.d. (accessed March 11, 2010). 27 Additional information on the TAA for communities program is available at USDOC, EDA, 

http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/CommunityTAA.xml. 28 EDA has set up a single competition for the TAA for Communities program, with the deadline to 

submit a full grant application set for April 20, 2010. Funding of $36,768,000 was made available for the 

TAA for Communities program through September 30, 2010, “which means that EDA must obligate all 

funds to particular projects by that date.” USDOC, EDA, “Community Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Program: Frequently Asked Questions,” n.d. (accessed April 16, 2010) 6, 10. See also U.S. House of 

Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, “How To Manual on Trade Adjustment Assistance in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” February 24, 2009. 29 USDOC, EDA, “Community Trade Adjustment Assistance Program Overview,” n.d. (accessed April 

16, 2010). 
2-6

 Support global trade and competitiveness by supporting “high growth/high 

potential companies” and advancing business clusters with significant export 

potential. 

 Grow the “green economy” by promoting renewable energy and energy 

efficiency.30

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.31 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 

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 disputesettlement 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.32 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.33 The time needed for making these determinations varies according to 

the type of practices alleged. 

In 2009, there were two active section 301 cases and one new section 301 petition filed, 

which are described below. 

Section 301 Cases in 2009

One section 301 case active in 2009 concerned the European Union’s meat hormone 

directive.34 Under section 301, the United States had imposed additional 100 percent ad 

valorem duties in 1999 on about $117 million in imports from the EU,35 following a 

 30 USDOC, EDA, “Community Trade Adjustment Assistance Program Overview,” n.d. (accessed April 

16, 2010). 31 Sect. 301 refers to sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411-2420). 32 Sect. 301(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411(a)). 

33 Sect. 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411(b)). 

34 For more information on the U.S.-EU meat hormone issue, see the chap. 3 section on the Dispute 

Settlement Body and the chap. 5 section on the EU in this study. 35 64 Fed. Reg. 40638 (July 27, 1999). 
2-7

successful WTO challenge of an EU law that bans imports of meat from animals that 

have been treated with certain hormones and a determination by WTO arbitrators that the 

United States was entitled to this level of compensation.36 The activity in 2009 followed 

completion of a second WTO dispute settlement case in November 2008 in which the EU 

had challenged U.S. continuation of the additional duties after the EU modified its 

hormones directive.37 In that case, the DSB adopted an Appellate Body report in which 

the Appellate Body found that the recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in 

1998 in EC—Hormones remained valid and operative, and recommended that the Dispute 

Settlement Body request the United States and the EU to initiate article 21.5 proceedings 

without delay in order to resolve their disagreement.38 

As provided under sections 306 and 307 of the Trade Act of 1974, USTR initiated a 

review of the actions taken under section 301 in the beef hormone case and solicited 

public comments on the advisability of modifying the list of products that are subject to 

additional duties.39 In January 2009, USTR announced that it would modify the list of 

products subject to additional duties, effective March 23, 2009.40 USTR removed some 

products from and added other products to the retaliation list. USTR also decided to 

increase the additional duties on one of the products and to modify the list of EU 

countries that were subject to additional duties. In an effort to resolve the dispute through 

negotiations, the United States and the EU initiated a series of consultations. In March 

and again in April 2009, USTR decided to delay the effective date of the additional duties 

in order to allow more time to reach an agreement with the EU.41 On May 13, 2009, the 

United States and the EU announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) in the beef hormone dispute, and USTR announced that the modifications of the 

retaliation list would be delayed.42 The MOU is a provisional agreement that establishes a 

framework with three phases that provide an interim solution while the parties work 

toward a permanent resolution of the long-standing dispute. The MOU requires the 

parties to take certain actions and to agree to move to the next phase. Under phase 1 of 

the MOU, the EU agreed to open for three years a new tariff-rate quota (TRQ) in the 

amount of 20,000 metric tons on beef produced without growth-promoting hormones, 

and the United States in turn agreed not to implement the additional duties on any new 

products or additional countries during the initial three years.43 In August 2009, the EU 

opened the new beef TRQ. Thereafter, USTR announced that the modification of the 

 36 WTO, DSB, DS26: EC—Hormones, Online Summary. 37 WTO, DSB, DS320: United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones 

Dispute, Online Summary. The EU modified its directive in 2003 (Directive 2003/74/EC). The United States, 

after reviewing the new directive, concluded that the EU had not implemented the DSB’s recommendations 

and ruling in EC—Hormones and declined to terminate its retaliation measures. The EU requested 

consultations in November 2004 and in January 2005 requested establishment of a panel to review the matter. 

A panel was established and its report was circulated in March 2008. Both the EU and the United States 

appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretation of the panel to the Appellate Body. The report of the 

Appellate Body was circulated in October 2008. In November 2008, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body 

report and the report of the panel as modified by the Appellate Body. See also WTO, DSB, DS26: EC—

Hormones, Online Summary. 38 WTO, DSB, DS320: United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones 

Dispute, Online Summary. 39 73 Fed. Reg. 66066 (November 6, 2008). 

40 74 Fed. Reg. 4265 (January 23, 2009). 

41 74 Fed. Reg. 11613 (March 18, 2009); 74 Fed. Reg. 19263 (April 28, 2009). It should be noted that 

USTR did not delay the effective date for the removal of certain products from the retaliation list. Therefore, 

some products were no longer subject to the additional 100 percent ad valorem duties as of March 23, 2009. 42 74 Fed. Reg. 22626 (May 13, 2009). 

43 74 Fed. Reg. 40864 (August 13, 2009). 
2-8

retaliation list that was announced in January 2009 would be terminated,44 but the 

additional duties that were originally imposed in July 1999 would remain in effect.45

The second active 301 case concerned the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) 

between the United States and Canada. Under the 2006 SLA, Canada agreed to impose 

certain export measures on Canadian exports of softwood lumber to the United States. In 

February 2009, an arbitral tribunal found that Canada had not complied with its 

obligations under the 2006 SLA. In April 2009, USTR initiated a 301 investigation and 

determined that the United States would impose additional 10 percent ad valorem duties 

on certain imports of softwood lumber from the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, 

and Saskatchewan.46

Finally, in May 2009, a section 301 petition was filed with USTR alleging that the acts, 

policies and practices of the Government of Israel were inconsistent with Israel’s 

obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 

Rights. USTR decided not to initiate an investigation under section 301 because the 

issues could be addressed effectively in the Special 301 process.47 

Special 301 

The Special 301 law48 requires the USTR each year to identify 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.49 Under the 

statute, countries deny adequate and effective IPR protection if they do not allow foreign 

persons “to secure, exercise, and enforce rights related to patents, process patents, 

registered trademarks, copyrights and mask works.”50 Countries deny fair and equitable 

market access if they deny 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. 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).51

 44 74 Fed. Reg. 48808 (September 24, 2009). 

45 The additional duties are set forth in subheadings 9903.02.21 through 9903.02.83 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010). For more information about the MOU, see the EU section of 

chap. 5. 46 74 Fed. Reg. 16436 (April 10, 2009). 

47 74 Fed. Reg. 31789 (July 2, 2009). 

48 The Special 301 law is set forth in sect. 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242). 49 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.” Sect. 182(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

2242(d)(1)). 50 A “mask work” is 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.” Sect. 901(a)(2) of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (14 U.S.C. 901(a)(2)) and sect. 182(d)(2) 

of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(d)(2)). 51 Sect. 182(d)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(d)(4)). 
2-9

In addition, the Special 301 law directs the USTR to identify so-called priority foreign 

countries.52 Priority foreign countries are countries that have the most onerous or 

egregious acts, policies, or practices that have 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 either a “watch list” or a “priority watch list” if 

the countries’ IPR laws and practices do not provide adequate and effective IPR 

protection, but the deficiencies are not deemed sufficient to designate the country as a 

priority foreign country. 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 either moved to the watch 

list or removed from any listing. Alternatively, a country that fails to make progress may 

be moved from the watch list to the priority watch list, or from the priority watch list to 

the list of priority foreign countries. 

In the 2009 Special 301 review, the USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness of 

IPR protection in 77 countries.53 In conducting the review, the USTR focused on a wide 

range of issues and policy objectives, including the need for significantly improved 

enforcement against counterfeiting and piracy, Internet piracy, counterfeit 

pharmaceuticals, transshipment of pirated and counterfeit goods, ensuring that foreign 

government ministries only use legally authorized and properly licensed business 

software, proper implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developed and developing 

countries, and full implementation of TRIPS Agreement standards by new WTO 

members at the time of their accession.54

In the 2009 Special 301 review, no countries were identified as priority foreign countries. 

The 2009 Special 301 report identified 12 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, Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, 

Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela were maintained on the priority watch list due to 

significant concerns regarding IPR protection. Algeria, Canada, and Indonesia were 

moved to the priority watch list from the watch list. Thirty-three countries were identified 

on the watch list. 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Reviews

Antidumping Investigations

The U.S. antidumping (AD) law is contained in title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended.55 The antidumping law provides relief in the form of special additional duties 

 52 Sect. 182(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2242(a)(2)). 53 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” 2009. 54 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” 2009. 

55 19 U.S.C. 1673 et seq. 
2-10

that are intended to offset margins of dumping. 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. 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. 

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.56 The antidumping duty is 

calculated to equal the difference between the U.S. price and the foreign-market value.57

The duty specified in an antidumping order reflects the weighted average dumping 

margins found by USDOC for both specific exporters it has examined and for all other 

exporters.58 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 USDOC receives a 

request for an annual review.59 

USDOC and the Commission each conduct preliminary and final antidumping 

investigations in making their separate determinations. The Commission instituted 21 

new antidumping investigations and completed 15 investigations during 2009.60

Antidumping duties were imposed in 2009 as a result of affirmative Commission 

determinations in 13 of those completed investigations on 11 products from three 

countries (table 2.1). 

Details on all antidumping investigations active at the Commission during 2009 are 

presented in appendix table A.4. A list of all antidumping duty orders, including 

suspension agreements,61 in effect as of the end of the year is presented in appendix table 

A.5. 

Countervailing Duty Investigations

The U.S. countervailing duty (CVD) 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 

 56 19 U.S.C. 1677b; 19 C.F.R. part 353, subpart D. 

57 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(a). 

58 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(B); 19 U.S.C. 1673d(c). 

59 19 U.S.C. 1675(a). 

60 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. 61 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. 
2-11

TABLE 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2009 

Country Product 

Range of duty 

(percent) 

Canada Citric acid and certain citric salts 23.21 

China Circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe 73.87–101.10 

China Citric acid and certain citric salts 94.61–156.87 

China Frontseating service valves 12.95–55.62 

China HEDP 36.21–72.42 

China Kitchen appliance shelving and racks 43.09–95.99 

China Small-diameter graphite electrodes 132.90–159.64 

China Steel threaded rod 55.16–206.00 

China Tow-behind lawn groomers 154.72–386.28 

China Uncovered innerspring units 164.75–234.51 

China Welded stainless steel pressure pipe 10.53–55.21 

India Commodity matchbooks 66.07 

India HEDP 3.10 

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices. 

subsidies on products imported into the United States.62 In general, procedures for such 

investigations are similar to those under the antidumping law. Petitions are filed with 

USDOC (the administering authority) and with the Commission. Before a countervailing 

duty order can be issued, USDOC must find a countervailable subsidy and the 

Commission must make an affirmative determination of material injury, threat of material 

injury, or material retardation by reason of the subsidized imports. 

The Commission instituted 15 new countervailing duty investigations and completed 9 

during 2009. Countervailing duties were imposed in 2009 as a result of affirmative 

Commission determinations in 6 of those 9 completed investigations on 6 products from 

two countries (table 2.2). 

Details on all countervailing duty investigations active at the Commission during 2009 

are presented in appendix table A.6, and a list of all countervailing duty orders, including 

suspension agreements,63 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 USDOC, if requested, to conduct annual 

reviews of outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders to determine the 

 62 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). 63 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. 
2-12

TABLE 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2009 

Country Product 

Range of duty 

(percent) 

China Circular welded carbon-quality steel line pipe 31.29–40.05 

China Citric acid and certain citric salts 3.60–118.95 

China Kitchen appliance shelving and racks 13.30–170.82 

China Tow-behind lawn groomers 0.56 (de minimis)–264.98 

China Welded stainless steel pressure pipe 1.10–299.16 

India Commodity matchbooks 9.88 

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices. 

amount of any net subsidy or dumping margin and to determine compliance with 

suspension agreements.64 Section 751(b) also authorizes USDOC and the Commission, as 

appropriate, to review certain outstanding determinations and agreements after receiving 

information or a petition that shows changed circumstances.65 In these circumstances, the 

party seeking revocation or modification of an antidumping or countervailing duty order 

or suspension agreement has the burden of persuading USDOC and the Commission that 

circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant review and revocation. On the basis 

of either of these reviews, USDOC may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty 

order in whole or in part or terminate or resume a suspended investigation. No changed 

circumstances investigations were active at the Commission during 2009. 

Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires both 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.66 During 2009, USDOC and the 

Commission instituted 27 sunset reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders and suspension agreements67 and the Commission completed 19 reviews, resulting 

in all 19 antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements being 

continued for five additional years. Appendix table A.8 shows completed reviews of 

antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in 2009.68

Section 337 Investigations 

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,69 authorizes the Commission, on the 

basis of a complaint or on its own initiative, to conduct investigations with respect to 

certain practices in import trade. Section 337 declares unlawful the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after 

importation of articles that infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. patent, registered 

 64 19 U.S.C. 1675(a). 

65 19 U.S.C. 1675(b). 

66 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 

67 Two of these reviews were subsequently terminated and the outstanding orders revoked because a 

domestic industry did not request that they be continued. The two revoked antidumping duty orders were on 

color television receivers from China and barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina. 68 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. 69 19 U.S.C. sect. 1337. 
2-13

trademark, registered copyright, registered mask work, or registered vessel hull design, 

for which a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being established.70

If the Commission determines that a violation exists, it can issue an order directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to exclude the subject imports from entry into 

the United States, and order the violating parties to cease and desist from engaging in the 

unlawful practices. The orders enter into force unless disapproved for “policy reasons” by 

the USTR71 within 60 days of issuance.72

During calendar year 2009, there were 91 active section 337 investigations and ancillary 

proceedings, 39 of which were instituted in 2009. Of these 39, 31 were new section 337 

investigations and eight were new ancillary proceedings relating to previously concluded 

investigations. In all but 4 of the new section 337 institutions in 2009, patent 

infringement was the only type of unfair act alleged. The four exceptions were one 

investigation involving alleged trademark as well as patent infringement, one 

investigation involving alleged copyright as well as patent infringement, one 

investigation involving alleged gray market trademark and copyright infringement, and 

one investigation involving false advertising allegations. The Commission completed a 

total of 46 investigations and ancillary proceedings under section 337 in 2009, including 

two enforcement proceedings, one remand proceeding, and one combined enforcement 

and remand proceeding. Fourteen exclusion orders and 26 cease and desist orders were 

issued during 2009. Twenty-three investigations were terminated by the Commission 

without a determination as to whether section 337 had been violated. Eighteen of these 

investigations were terminated on the basis of settlement agreements and/or consent 

orders. 

Over one-third of the active investigations in 2009 concerned products in the 

semiconductor, telecommunications, and electronics fields. These investigations 

concerned products such as cellular telephones containing digital cameras, liquid crystal 

displays, optoelectronic devices, and flash memory chips. There were also a number of 

investigations involving software, such as machine vision and course management 

systems. Other investigations involved chemical products, including creatine and 

glucosamine. Another group of section 337 investigations active during the year focused 

on a variety of consumer items, ranging from adjustable keyboard supports to hair irons 

to energy drinks. 

At the close of 2009, 43 section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending 

at the Commission. Commission activities involving section 337 actions in 2009 are 

 70 Also unlawful under sect. 337 are other unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the 

importation of articles into the United States, or in the sale of imported articles, the threat or effect of which 

is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry, to prevent the establishment of an industry, or to 

restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States. Examples of such other unfair acts are 

misappropriation of trade secrets, common law trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false 

advertising, and false designation of origin. Unfair practices that involve the importation of dumped or 

subsidized merchandise must be pursued under antidumping or countervailing duty provisions, not under 

sect. 337. 71 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). 72 Sect. 337 proceedings at the Commission are conducted before an administrative law judge in 

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sect. 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. 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 the issuance of a remedy. 
2-14

presented in table A.9. As of December 31, 2009, exclusion orders based on violations of 

section 337 were in effect for 78 investigations. Table A.10 lists the investigations in 

which these exclusion orders were issued. 

Tariff Preference Programs 

Generalized System of Preferences 

The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences 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). Authorization for the GSP program was extended in 

December 2008 and is currently set to expire on December 31, 2010.73

The program is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.74 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.75 

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.76

The following developments with respect to the U.S. GSP program occurred in 2009: 

 On June 29, 2009, a number of changes were announced based on the 2008 GSP 

Annual Product Review. A number of products were excluded because imports 

exceeded CNLs; other products were granted CNL waivers; and one product, 

which had previously received a CNL waiver and had that waiver revoked 

 73 Pub. L. 111-124. 

74 19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq. 

75 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 181. 76 19 U.S.C. 2463(d)(4)(B)(ii). 
2-15

because import levels are “super-competitive,” continues to enter free of duty 

under GSP because it was added to the list of products that are not produced in 

the United States and are therefore exempt from CNLs based on percentage share 

of imports.77

 On December 23, 2009, some changes about beneficiary status were announced. 

Croatia and Equatorial Guinea are to be graduated from the GSP program, 

effective January 1, 2011, for reaching the “high-income country” category. Cape 

Verde was removed from the LDBDC list (based on its removal from the United 

Nations LDBDC list), effective January 1, 2010, but remains a GSP beneficiary. 

The Republic of the Maldives was added to the list of GSP beneficiaries.78

Duty-free imports entered under the GSP program totaled $19.8 billion in 2009, 

accounting for 8.6 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries and 1.3 

percent of total imports (table 2.3).79 Angola was the leading GSP beneficiary in 2009, 

followed by Thailand, India, Brazil, and Equatorial Guinea. Almost one-third of all dutyfree entries under the GSP were petroleum products (which only enter free of duty under 

the GSP when imported from LDBDCs, including Angola and Equatorial Guinea). 

Appendix table A.11 shows the top 20 products imported under the GSP in 2009, and 

appendix table A.12 shows the overall sectoral distribution of GSP benefits. 

African Growth and Opportunity Act 

The African Growth and Opportunity Act was enacted in 2000 to provide unilateral 

preferential trade benefits to eligible sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries pursuing 

political and economic reform.80 AGOA provides duty-free market access to all GSPeligible products and more than 1,800 additional qualifying tariff line-item products from 

designated SSA countries, and exempts these beneficiaries from GSP CNLs.81 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, 2015.82

In 2009, articles entering the United States free of duty under AGOA were valued at 

$28.1 billion, a 50.2 percent decrease over 2008, and accounted for 63.8 percent of all 

imports from AGOA countries (table 2.4). The sharp decline was driven primarily by a 

 77 Proclamation No. 8394 of June 29, 2009, 74 F.R. 31821 (July 2, 2009). 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. If a product is included in the list of products that are not 

produced in the United States, it is exempt from the 50 percent import share CNL. 78 Proclamation No. 8467 of December 23, 2009, 74 F.R. 69221 (December 30, 2009). 

79 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. 80 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 on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy toward Sub-Saharan Africa and Implementation of the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act,” 21. The USTR’s 2008 report is the last of eight annual reports required under 

AGOA. 81 Should GSP lapse, AGOA preferences remain in effect. 

82 19 U.S.C. 3701 note. AGOA provisions that provide preferential treatment for certain textiles and 

apparel also expire on September 30, 2015. 19 U.S.C. 3721(f). 
2-16

TABLE 2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries and the world, 2009, millions of dollars

Item 

All GSP

beneficiaries World

Total U.S. imports 231,391 1,540,013

 Imports of products that are not GSP eligible 196,227 878,515

 Imports of products that are GSP eligiblea

 35,165 661,498

 Imports of products that are GSP eligible from all GSP beneficiariesb

 22,211 293,373

 Imports of products that are only GSP eligible from LDBDCsc

 12,953 368,126

 

Total GSP duty-free imports 19,839 19,839

 Non-LDBDC GSP duty free 13,324 13,324

 LDBDC GSP duty free 6,515 6,515

 

Total of GSP eligible products not benefiting from GSP duty-free treatment d 15,325 641,659

 GSP program exclusions 4,848 5,447

 All other 10,477 636,212

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

 GSP (excluding LDBDC (least-developed beneficiary developing countries))-eligible products are those for which a 

rate of duty of “free” appears in the special rate column of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) 

followed by the symbols “A” or “A*” in parentheses (the symbol “A” indicates that all beneficiary countries are eligible 

for duty-free treatment with respect to all articles provided for in the designated provisions, and the symbol “A*” 

indicates that certain beneficiary countries, specified in general note 4(d) of the HTS, are not eligible for duty-free 

treatment with respect to any article provided for in the designated provision). 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 at least five types of 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 socalled 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. 

TABLE 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA countries, 2007–09 

Item 2007 2008 2009

Total imports from AGOA countries (millions of $) 64,532 81,438 43,950

 Total under AGOA, including GSP (millions of $)a 51,051 66,259 33,709

 Imports under AGOA, excluding GSP (millions of $) 42,270 56,374 28,050

Total under AGOA as a percent of total 65.5 69.2 63.8

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. 
2-17

decrease in the value and quantity of imports of petroleum-related products.83 Duty-free 

U.S. imports under AGOA, including under the GSP program, were valued at $33.7 

billion in 2009, accounting for 77 percent of total imports from AGOA countries and 

representing a decrease of 49.1 percent over 2008. 

The leading suppliers of duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA in 2009 were Nigeria (61.4 

percent of total AGOA imports), Angola (15.1 percent), South Africa (5.9 percent), the 

Republic of the Congo (5.3 percent), Gabon (4.3 percent), and Chad (4.2 percent). These 

six countries accounted for 96.1 percent of total imports by value under AGOA, a slight 

decrease over 2008 (appendix table A.13). Of the leading imports under AGOA, 

petroleum-related products decreased to $25.5 billion in 2009, down 51.7 percent by 

value from 2008, and accounted for 90.8 percent of the total value of AGOA imports in 

2009, a decrease over 2008 (appendix table A.14).84 Imports of apparel in 2009 were 

approximately $0.8 billion, and accounted for 2.8 percent of total AGOA imports by 

value, compared to $1.1 billion, or 2.0 percent, in 2008. 

Each year, the President must consider whether SSA countries85 are, or remain, eligible 

for AGOA benefits based on specific criteria.86 At the end of 2009, a total of 40 SSA 

countries were designated as eligible for AGOA benefits,87 and 27 SSA countries were 

eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits.88

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 eighth 

AGOA Forum was held in Nairobi, Kenya, August 4–6, 2009. It provided for 

 83 Although petroleum products only enter duty-free under GSP for LDBDCs, the duty-free preference 

for petroleum products extends to all AGOA beneficiaries. 84 The decrease in imports of petroleum and related products primarily reflects decreasing prices. 

Whereas petroleum import volumes (HS chapter 27, barrels) from the five leading AGOA petroleum 

suppliers (Nigeria, Angola, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, and Chad) decreased by almost 20 percent 

between 2008 and 2009, the value of these imports decreased by more than 50 percent. Official statistics of 

the U.S. Department of Commerce (DataWeb) (accessed April 21, 2010). 85 19 U.S.C. 3706 lists a total of 48 countries, or their successor political entities, as potential 

beneficiaries. 86 19 U.S.C. 3703(a). See also USTR, “2008 Comprehensive Report,” 21-22. 

87 The following 40 countries are listed in general note 16 of the 2009 HTS as designated AGOA 

eligible beneficiaries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, 

Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, 

Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, 

Niger, Nigeria, the Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, the Seychelles, Sierra 

Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. USITC, “HTS 2009 (Rev. 1),” 

February 1, 2009, 166. Effective January 1, 2009, Mauritania’s designation as an AGOA beneficiary country 

was terminated. White House, “To Take Certain Actions under the African Growth and Opportunity Act and 

the Generalized System of Preferences,” December 19, 2008. Effective January 1, 2010, Mauritania’s 

designation as an AGOA beneficiary country was reinstated and, for the purposes of sect. 112(c) of AGOA, 

Mauritania was designated a lesser developed beneficiary country; and Guinea’s, Madagascar’s, and Niger’s 

AGOA designations were terminated. 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). 88 The following 27 countries are listed in U.S. note 7 to subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the HTS as 

eligible to receive AGOA apparel benefits during 2009: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape 

Verde, Chad, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, 

Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, 

Uganda, and Zambia. USITC, “HTS 2009—Supplement 1 (Rev. 1),” September 3, 2009, sect. xxii, 98-II-3. 
2-18

government-to-government ministerial meetings, as well as meetings of representatives 

from the U.S. and African private sector and civil society. The theme of the forum was 

“Realizing the Full Potential of AGOA through Expansion of Trade and Investment.” 

Major topics of discussion included: 89

 Possible Effects of Global Challenges on AGOA: Laying the Groundwork for the 

Next Wave of Growth and Beyond; 

 Africa: Successes, Challenges and Prospects; 

 Adding Value to Agricultural Production: Market Access, Export 

Competitiveness, and Policies; and 

 Regional Transportation Integration: Strengthening Food, Commodities, and 

Industrial Supply Chain. 

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.90 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 2002.91 ATPA, as amended by ATPDEA, has 

expired several times.92 On October 16, 2008, ATPA was extended through December 

31, 2009, for Colombia and Peru, and through June 30, 2009, for Bolivia and Ecuador 

with provisions for reviews of their eligibility under ATPA requirements to determine 

continuation of eligibility.93 Effective December 15, 2008, President Bush suspended 

Bolivia from eligibility for failing to meet ATPA’s counternarcotics cooperation 

criteria.94 As a result of eligibility reviews, on June 30, 2009, President Obama did not 

 89 “2009 AGOA Forum—Realizing the Full Potential of AGOA through Expansion of Trade and 

Investment,” http://www.agoa.gov (accessed February 15, 2010). For more information, see USDOC, ITA, 

African Growth and Opportunity Act Web site, http://www.agoa.gov/agoa_forum/agoa_forum8.html. Other 

topics included Reforming the Financial Sector: African Experiences and Priorities; Addressing Good 

Governance and Enabling Investment Environments; Agricultural Policy and Regulatory Standards; 

Intellectual Property Rights: New Tools for African Competitiveness; Opportunities for Sustainable 

Financing for Health System Strengthening; Advancing African Economic Communities: Trends and 

Challenges; Ensuring Workforce Benefits; Financing Climate Change Mitigation in Agriculture; Promoting 

Regional Trade in Staple Food Products; Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Programs; Financing 

Renewable Energy; and Specialty Food Products. 90 For a more detailed description of ATPA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC,

Impact of the Andean Trade Preference Act, 2008. 91 Pub. L. 107-210, title XXXI. The four 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). 92 Pub. L. 109-432, sect. 7001 et seq.; Pub. L. 110-42; and Pub. L. 110-191. 93 Pub. L. 110-436. 

94 Proclamation No. 8323, 73 Fed. Reg. 72677 (November 25, 2008). 
2-19

revoke Ecuador’s eligibility for ATPA benefits and did not reinstate ATPA eligibility for 

Bolivia.95 On December 28, 2009, ATPA was extended through December 31, 2010.96

A wide range of products is eligible for duty-free entry under ATPA. ATPDEA amended 

ATPA to provide duty-free treatment for certain products previously excluded from 

ATPA. Products that continue to be excluded from ATPA preferential treatment include 

textile and apparel articles not otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under 

ATPDEA, 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 ATPA-eligible counties—Colombia, 

Ecuador, Peru, and prior to 2009, Bolivia97—were valued at $20.7 billion in 2009, a 

decrease of 23.8 percent from $28.5 billion in 2008 (table 2.5). U.S. imports under ATPA 

declined 43.7 percent in 2009 to $9.7 billion, which accounted for 47.0 percent of all 

imports from ATPA countries. U.S. imports under ATPDEA accounted for 83.0 percent 

of imports under ATPA in 2009 ($8.1 billion) and U.S. imports under the original ATPA 

(ATPA excluding ATPDEA) accounted for the remaining 17.0 percent, valued at $1.7 

billion. 

In 2009, U.S. imports under ATPA decreased from all of the beneficiary countries 

(appendix table A.15). Colombia was the largest source of U.S. imports under ATPA in 

2009, as it was also in 2008. Imports from Colombia decreased 23.8 percent in value 

during 2009, mainly because of lower petroleum prices. Petroleum products accounted 

for 75.8 percent of U.S. imports under ATPA in 2009 and represented 5 of the top 25 

U.S. imports under the program (appendix table A.16). Apparel was the next-largest 

category of imports under ATPA, accounting for 6 percent of such imports and 7 of the 

25 leading imports under ATPA. Other leading imports under ATPA in 2009 included 

copper cathodes, fresh cut flowers, asparagus, and pouched tuna. 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act

The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 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.98 The CBTPA also extended NAFTAequivalent 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 

 95 “Report of the President Concerning Ecuador and Bolivia.” 

96 Pub. L. 111-124, sect. 2. 

97 Includes 2008 data for Bolivia after it lost beneficiary status on December 15, 2008. 98 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. 
2-20

TABLE 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2007–09 

Item 2007 2008 2009

Total imports from ATPA countries (millions of $) 20,923 28,483 20,690

 Total under ATPA (millions of $) 12,307 17,243 9,714

 Imports under ATPDEA (millions of $)a 9,497 14,570 8,063

 Imports under ATPA, excluding ATPDEA (millions of $)b 2,810 2,672 1,652

Total under ATPA as a percent of total 58.8 60.5 47.0

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

 a 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). 

 b

 ATPA (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. 

products not otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA and abovequota imports of certain agricultural products subject to tariff-rate quotas (primarily 

sugar, beef, and dairy products). CBTPA provisions were scheduled to expire on 

September 30, 2008, but were extended through September 30, 2010;99 other parts of 

CBERA have no expiration date. In the discussions that follow, the term CBERA refers 

to CBERA as amended by the CBTPA. 

In 2009, 18 countries and territories were eligible for permanent CBERA preferences100

and 8 were eligible for CBTPA preferences.101 U.S. imports under CBERA decreased by 

50.1 percent from 2008 values, falling to $2.4 billion in 2009 (table 2.6).102 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 the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement (CAFTA-DR). Excluding Costa Rica, U.S. imports under CBERA declined 

32.0 percent between 2008 and 2009. This decline reflected large drops from record high 

prices in 2008 for energy-related products (mineral fuels, methanol, fuel ethanol, and 

anhydrous ammonia) that are major imports from CBERA countries. These declines 

continued a trend: U.S. imports under CBERA have declined in value over the past three 

 

 99 Pub. L. 110-234, sect. 15408. CBTPA was extended to September 30, 2020, on May 24, 2010, when 

the President signed H.R. 5160, the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010. 100 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. 101 Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Panama, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. 102 Table 2.6, and appendix tables A.17 and A.18 include data for two CAFTA-DR countries that were 

eligible for CBERA benefits during all or part of 2007 and 2008. They include data for the Dominican 

Republic, which was a CBERA beneficiary during part of 2007, and for Costa Rica, which was a CBERA 

beneficiary during 2007 and 2008. When the CAFTA-DR enters into force for a country, the country is 

removed from the enumeration of designated beneficiary countries under CBERA, CBTPA, and the GSP. 

CAFTA-DR entered into force in 2006 for El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, in 2007 for the 

Dominican Republic, and in 2009 for Costa Rica. U.S. FTAs are discussed in more detail in chap. 4 of this 

report. 
2-21

TABLE 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2007–09 

Item 2007a 2008 2009

Total imports from CBERA countries (millions of $) 19,058 19,486 9,414

 Total under CBERA, including CBTPA (millions of $) 5,496 4,726 2,359

 Imports under CBTPA (millions of $)b 2,662 1,702 1,281

 Imports under CBERA, excluding CBTPA (millions of $)c 2,834 3,024 1,078

Total under CBERA as a percent of total 28.8 24.3 25.1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

 a

 Data for 2007 include U.S. imports from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican 

Republic only for the period during which those countries were eligible for CBERA benefits before CAFTA-DR 

entered into force. 

 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 these 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).

years, accounting for the following shares of all U.S. imports from CBERA countries: 

28.8 percent in 2007, 24.3 percent in 2008, and 25.1 percent in 2009. Appendix table 

A.17 shows U.S. imports entered under CBERA provisions from each of the CBERA 

countries from 2007 to 2009. Trinidad and Tobago continued as the leading supplier of 

U.S. imports under CBERA in 2009. Appendix table A.18 shows the 25 leading U.S. 

imports entered under CBERA provisions from 2007 to 2009. Mineral fuels, methanol, 

apparel products, and fuel ethanol dominated the list of duty-free imports in 2009. Four 

of the leading products were mineral fuels; 3 were knitted and nonknitted apparel; and the 

remaining 18 were products that had already qualified for benefits under the original 

CBERA before the implementation of the CBTPA. 

HOPE Acts

U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti increased 24.5 percent to $513.3 million in 2009. 

Imports of apparel in 2009 under provisions of the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity 

through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE Act),103 as amended by the 

Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008 

(HOPE II Act),104 rose to $137.9 million from $75.0 million in 2008.105

The HOPE Act, which was signed into law on December 20, 2006, amended CBERA to 

provide expanded rules of origin for inputs to apparel and for wire harness automotive 

 103 Pub. L. 109-432, sect. 5001 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE Act). 104 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 Act of 2010 on May 24, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-171). 105 Data on trade under the HOPE Acts are from USDOC, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), 

“U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs.” 
2-22

components assembled in Haiti and imported into the United States.106 The HOPE Act 

provided expanded trade benefits beyond what the country receives under the CBTPA for 

up to five years, extending duty-free treatment to particular U.S. imports of knit and 

woven apparel assembled in Haiti from U.S., Haitian, or third-country inputs, subject to 

import caps, eligibility requirements, and in most cases, value-added content 

requirements. The act provided for more flexible alternative sourcing of inputs (such as 

yarn and fabric) than the CBTPA and has the potential to improve the competitiveness of 

Haitian manufacturers by allowing the use of lower-cost raw materials, a primary cost 

component in the production of apparel.107

The HOPE II Act extended all tariff preferences through September 30, 2018. It allowed 

direct shipment of goods assembled in Haiti from either Haiti or the Dominican Republic 

and further expanded opportunities for duty-free imports of apparel, textile luggage, and 

textile headgear assembled in Haiti. 

 106 There were no imports of wire harness automotive components from Haiti in 2007, 2008, or 2009. 107 For more details on the special rules for apparel imported directly from Haiti under the HOPE Acts, 

see USITC, Special Rules for Haiti, 2008.
3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

Selected Trade Developments in the WTO, 

OECD, APEC, and ACTA 

In 2009, multilateral trade negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda focused on 

informal bilateral meetings, attempting to reach agreement on how to structure the final 

negotiating framework involved in commitments regarding the exchange of tariff and 

nontariff reductions. The General Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) 

continued to meet regularly; it also reappointed Pascal Lamy as WTO Director-General. 

This chapter also highlights developments in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that helped support activities in the world trading system, 

particularly during the global economic downturn, and covers similar developments in 

the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. The chapter also covers plurilateral 

negotiations underway to reach an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement aimed at 

providing a framework to address global infringement of intellectual property rights. 

World Trade Organization 

WTO members continued efforts to overcome the impasse over how to move the Doha 

Development Agenda (DDA or Doha Round) of multilateral trade negotiations forward 

to final negotiations.1 In 2009, these efforts focused largely on informal bilateral and 

technical meetings to resolve differences—mostly between developed-country members 

and advanced developing-country members—over how to structure the overall 

negotiating framework, or so-called negotiating modalities. The variables and formulas 

embodied in this framework help determine the scope and extent of tariff and nontariff 

reductions for agricultural and nonagricultural products. The tariff reductions would 

ultimately be reflected in a member’s national tariff schedule after bilateral negotiations 

between individual countries result in their exchange of final negotiated commitments. 

In the WTO General Council, Director-General Pascal Lamy provided periodic updates 

to members on WTO activity. Among the actions taken during 2009 in the General 

Council, WTO members extended waivers for preferential trade agreements designed to 

benefit a number of developing countries, conducted the eighth annual review of China’s 

implementation of its accession protocol, and completed the biennial review of the WTO 

waiver underpinning U.S. “Jones Act” legislation, which governs U.S. intracoastal 

maritime shipping. In 2009, WTO membership remained unchanged at 153. Chinese 

Taipei—commonly referred to as Taiwan—became a signatory of the plurilateral WTO 

Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) on July 15, 2009, bringing membership 

in the GPA to 14.2

 1

 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 8–9. 2

 At the end of 2009, the 14 signatories to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement were 

Aruba (the Kingdom of the Netherlands signed with respect to Aruba); Canada; Chinese Taipei; the European 

Communities (27); Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Liechtenstein; Norway; Singapore; South 

Korea; Switzerland; and the United States. 
3-2 

Dispute settlement is an important WTO function, and in 2009, the WTO marked its 

400th case under its dispute-settlement provisions. In addition, at year-end the EU and a 

number of Latin American countries reached an agreement to settle a long-running 

dispute, which dated back to 1996, concerning the EU banana import regime. 

WTO members held the WTO’s Seventh Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, 

from November 30 to December 2, 2009.3

 At the conference, members considered in 

particular the role of the WTO in the context of the global financial and economic crisis 

that began in 2008, and reviewed the state of the Doha Round trade negotiations.4

Ministerial Conference 

The seventh WTO Ministerial Conference focused on the theme of “the WTO, the 

Multilateral Trading System, and the Current Global Economic Environment.”5

 The 

conference was not intended to be a negotiating session under the Doha Round, but 

instead was to be a forum for WTO members to review ongoing work—including the 

DDA—and reflect on the role of the WTO.6

At the ministerial conference, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy—overseeing the 

DDA in his role as chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC)—summarized 

the conference as follows. Lamy pointed out that members recognized the crucial role 

that the WTO has played in mitigating the effects of the financial and economic crisis, 

and in helping to moderate protectionist trade actions taken in response to the crisis. He 

also noted the importance of the Doha Round to economic recovery and poverty 

alleviation in the developing countries. The Director-General noted that members raised 

the point that progress in the Doha Round negotiations would be necessary not only on 

priority issues such as agricultural and nonagricultural market access, but also in other 

areas, including trade in services, multilateral rules governing trade disciplines, and trade 

facilitation. He further stated that members recognized several important points: that 

issues involving the least-developed countries required special attention, such as action 

on duty- and quota-free market access and a waiver regarding trade in services; that many 

of the same issues applied to the needs of small and vulnerable economies; and that there 

was a need to address broader issues such as economic development as well as particular 

issues such as trade in cotton. In addition, he said members recognized that developing 

and least-developed countries needed continued assistance beyond simple market access, 

through such programs as the “Aid for Trade” initiative and programs supporting trade 

capacity building. 

Several issues concerning regional trade agreements were also raised at the ministerial. 

Members agreed broadly, according to the Director-General, that the growing number of 

bilateral and regional trade agreements indicated a need to ensure that these two 

approaches to trade opening continued to complement one another. In particular, he noted 

that conference participants recognized that the recently initiated WTO transparency 

 3

 USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” December 

18, 2009. 4

 DDA participants also agreed to hold a stocktaking meeting in the first quarter of 2010. USDOS, U.S. 

Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” December 18, 2009; USTR, 

2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 7. 5

 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 9. 6

 Ibid. 
3-3 

mechanism for regional trade agreements has worked well to date, although members 

agreed to continue seeking improvements.7

 

Doha Trade Negotiations 

TNC chairman Lamy provided WTO members with a survey of the status of the 

negotiations in the DDA at the WTO General Council meetings throughout the year, and 

summarized the situation at the WTO Ministerial Conference held at year-end 2009.8

 The 

following subsections offer an overview of the summaries the chairman provided of these 

General Council meetings. 

Agriculture 

The TNC chairman noted that during 2009, it had become clear that the Special Session 

of the Committee on Agriculture conducting the DDA agricultural negotiations took a 

two-track approach.9

 Track one sought to identify at a technical level the common format, 

exact databases, and appropriate tables and nomenclature to be used in preparing the 

common negotiating template. The chairman explained that members plan to use this 

template to formulate their individual draft tariff schedules, which would reflect 

concessions and commitments on domestic agricultural supports, export subsidies, and 

improved market access. 

Track two, according to the chairman, continued broader consultations to resolve issues 

affected by bracketed text, various annotations, and other unresolved elements found in 

the draft modalities text—the text that is to provide the structure governing individual 

negotiations. These consultations also addressed domestic agricultural support—notably, 

cotton subsidies and supports—and market access issues. The chairman stated that talks 

on sensitive agricultural products, tariff simplification, capped limits on tariff rates, and 

the expansion of tariff-rate quotas raised the need for consultations on how to address 

these issues in the modalities text in the context of special and differential treatment for 

developing and least-developed countries.10

Nonagricultural Market Access 

Chairman Lamy reported that in 2009, the Negotiating Group on Market Access (the 

Nonagricultural Market Access group or NAMA) continued to address multiple 

approaches to reductions in nontariff measures (NTMs), including (1) across all sectors 

 7

 WTO, “Chairman’s Summary,” December 2, 2009, 1–2; USDOS, Secretary of State, “WTO 

Ministerial Conference,” December 3, 2009. 8

 WTO, “Thursday, 17 December 2009—Agenda Item 2—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” December 17, 2009, 1–2. 9

 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 1–2. 10 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 1–2; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre 

William Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 2; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General 

Council Meeting, November 17, 2009,” November 19, 2009; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 

Annual Report, March 2010, 9–10. 
3-4 

(“horizontally”), (2) within a sector (“vertically”), and (3) individually (via a 

“request/offer” format). Addressing trade in manufactured goods broadly, the group 

continued to consider the technical specifics involved in the NAMA tariff-cutting 

formula to be used—a formula that aims to reduce higher tariff rates to a greater extent 

than lower ones. In general, according to the chairman, approximately 30 self-declared 

developing-country members of the WTO have been seeking a technical specification of 

the formula that would effectively permit them to retain higher tariffs in many sectors 

through the use of various exclusions and other flexibilities in the formula, which would 

not apply to member countries that are more developed. The chairman noted that the 

group also familiarized delegations with the complexities of the WTO Secretariat’s 

electronic negotiating files, where each member sets out its individual draft tariff 

schedule and where final negotiated concessions and commitments will be incorporated. 

The chairman reported that in addressing trade in manufactured goods, the group focused 

on certain priority sectors and issues raised in different members’ proposals: automobiles 

and related products; electronics and electrical products; labeling of textile, apparel, 

footwear, and travel goods; remanufactured goods; chemicals; and a “horizontal NTM 

mechanism” that members might be able to use to address NTMs following the round’s 

conclusion. He added that further tariff initiatives were proposed for other sectors, 

including bicycles and related parts, fish and fish products, forest products, gems and 

jewelry, hand tools, industrial machinery, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, raw 

materials, sports equipment, and toys. However, according to the TNC chairman, despite 

presentation of technical work on sectoral proposals by various sponsors during several 

informational sessions, progress was negligible.11

Trade in Services 

Chairman Lamy reported that during 2009, the Special Session of the Council for Trade 

in Services continued negotiations based on Lamy’s draft text issued in July 2008. 

Despite broad agreement in the group on the chairman’s text, little additional progress 

was reported in 2009. The chairman added that although members link progress in the 

services negotiations to advances made first in the agricultural and NAMA groups, 

members have sought to maintain the draft modalities text in services on par with those 

under negotiation in these other two groups. 

In 2009, according to the chairman, the group focused discussions in two areas: (1) 

market access and (2) rules affecting trade in services. He stated that on market access, 

technical discussions were held, seeking to clarify previous discussions and likely offers. 

Concerning rules on traded services, negotiations based on the chairman’s draft text 

continued regarding domestic services regulation, but the chairman reported little 

progress regarding services subsidies, emergency safeguards for services, or government 

procurement of services. However, he stated, work on a draft text for a waiver for the 

least-developed countries in the area of trade in services advanced during 2009. Toward 

year-end, the TNC chairman remarked on the need to achieve a balance in the services 

negotiations between the two areas of market access and rules. He called for improved 

 11 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 2; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William 

Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 2–3; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General 

Council Meeting, November 17, 2009,” November 19, 2009; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 

Annual Report, March 2010, 12–14. 
3-5 

market access offers, as well as further progress in the negotiations on rules governing 

trade in services, especially text addressing domestic services regulation.12

Rules on Trade Disciplines 

During 2009, according to chairman Lamy, the Negotiating Group on Rules continued to 

clarify and improve multilateral trade rules and disciplines concerning antidumping 

measures, subsidy and countervailing duty measures (including fishery subsidies), as well 

as regional trade agreements (RTAs). The chairman reported that during the year, the 

group structured discussions in the three areas set out in the chairman’s revised draft text 

of December 2008: (1) items in the draft text that are “bracketed” or contentious, (2) 

items in the draft text that are “unbracketed” or largely agreed, and (3) items not reflected 

in the draft text but that have been proposed by members. The chairman stated that the 

group largely completed its first review of the WTO agreements on antidumping 

measures as well as on subsidies and countervailing duty measures following the 

chairman’s three categories, although no significant convergence resulted concerning 

contentious issues. He added that the group also finished its initial review of differences 

between provisions in the WTO Agreement on Antidumping Measures and the WTO 

Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Duty Measures, with an eye to harmonizing 

the two, but no definitive conclusions were reached. 

Chairman Lamy reported that in 2009, discussions regarding fishery subsidies proceeded 

according to the chairman’s December 2008 “roadmap” of key questions intended to 

identify issues members wish to include in any revision of the November 2007 draft text 

on fishery subsidies. He stated, however, that the group made little progress in 2009 on 

RTAs, in particular regarding making the provisional transparency mechanism for RTAs 

into a permanent WTO instrument. According to the chairman, members largely agreed 

that insufficient time had passed since 2007, when the provisional mechanism was 

implemented, to properly evaluate its operation; members also noted that little discussion 

has taken place concerning systemic issues involving RTAs.13

Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights 

In 2009, the Special Session of the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights continued discussions aimed at establishing a multilateral system of 

notification and registration of geographical indications (GI) for wines and spirits (the 

“register”). As identified in the chairman’s report of June 2008, three main areas are 

currently at the center of the group’s discussions: (1) issues involving participation in the 

register—for example, whether participation would be mandatory (for all WTO 

members) or voluntary; (2) the legal effect or other consequences of registration and 

 12 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 1–2; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre 

William Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 3; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 

Annual Report, March 2010, 10–11. 13 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 3; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William 

Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 3–4; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General 

Council Meeting, November 17, 2009,” November 19, 2009; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 

Annual Report, March 2010, 14–17. 
3-6 

participation in the system, such as whether compliance with rights under the register 

would apply universally or solely within a given territory; and (3) issues of special and 

differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries concerning costs, 

fees, and administrative burdens entailed in the register’s operation. 

According to the chairman, the core issue of the register’s legal effect has been the source 

of significant division in the group. He stated that one group of members, including most 

notably the EU, argues that the register should be more binding legally, with notification 

of a geographical term obliging other participants to defend the registered term, while a 

second group of countries, which includes the United States, envisions a more 

informational register resulting from members’ notifications.14

Geographical Indications and the Convention on Biological Diversity 

The TNC chairman reported in his role as WTO Director-General that he and members 

continued consultations during 2009 regarding the possible relationship between the 

WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the 

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD). The chair pointed out 

that this dialogue has focused on reaching a clearer view of the policy and legal issues 

involved, in particular concerning the possible extension of the UN CBD to include 

protection for geographical indications found under article 23 (Additional Protection for 

Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits) of the WTO TRIPS Agreement. The 

Director-General reported that discussions are roughly halfway through the exchange of 

views on different themes involving possible extension of GI protection to the UN CBD, 

which is expected to be followed by a review to determine how to proceed toward more 

concrete results.15

Trade and Development 

The Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development has a DDA mandate to 

review and strengthen WTO special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions.16

According to the chairman, in 2009 the committee focused on identifying elements 

needed to establish a monitoring mechanism that would help oversee the implementation 

and effectiveness of S&D provisions. The chairman stated that with minimal progress 

reported in 2008 regarding S&D provisions in specific agreements—such as the WTO 

 14 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 4–5; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre 

William Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 5; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 

Annual Report, March 2010, 23–24. 15 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 6; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual 

Report, March 2010, 59–63. 16 The WTO Agreements contain 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 

increase trading opportunities specifically for 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. In addition, S&D treatment includes additional provisions aimed at 

addressing the particular issues affecting least-developed country members. 
3-7 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing—

members turned in 2009 to discussing key parts of an S&D monitoring mechanism, 

including its possible structure, scope, and function. 

The chairman said that forthcoming discussion of these elements is likely to consider (1) 

whether the mechanism should address S&D issues through a more political-level or 

technical-level structure, (2) whether the mechanism’s scope should encompass S&D 

provisions in WTO agreements alone or should also encompass S&D provisions under 

WTO General Council Decisions and Ministerial Declarations; and (3) what function the 

mechanism should play in WTO deliberations once results from the S&D monitoring 

exercise become available. According to the chairman, consultations are likely in 2010 

between the chairman of the special session and the chairmen of other negotiating groups 

on how to advance “category II” proposals—proposals regarding trade, development, and 

S&D treatment that are under discussion in other WTO bodies besides the Special 

Session of the Committee on Trade and Development.17

Trade Facilitation 

Chairman Lamy reported that during 2009, the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation 

compiled members’ proposals regarding General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

(GATT) 1994 articles V (Freedom of Transit), VIII (Fees and Formalities connected with 

Importation and Exportation), and X (Publication and Administration of Trade 

Regulations) into a consolidated draft text. The chairman explained that the proposals in 

the draft text address issues affecting the transparency of customs rules and procedures 

such as publication requirements, enquiry points, and appeal procedures, as well as prearrival approval, expedited shipment, clearance, and release procedures for goods; the 

text also includes proposals to eliminate or simplify customs fees and formalities. He 

added that the group continued to consider how these proposed rules can improve S&D 

treatment provisions for developing and least-developed countries. The chair noted that 

negotiations in 2010 are likely to focus on further clarification and refinement of the 

elements in the draft text consolidated at year-end 2009.18

Trade and the Environment

According to the chairman, in 2009, the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 

Environment continued to consider the three elements of its mandate under the DDA: (1) 

the relation between trade rules under the WTO Agreement and trade obligations under 

various multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); (2) procedures for regular 

information exchange between WTO committees and MEA secretariats; and (3) the 

reduction or elimination of tariff and nontariff measures to trade in environmental goods 

 17 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 4; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William 

Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 4; WTO, “Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 

Development—Report by the Chairman,” December 14, 2009, 1–3; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 

2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 24–25. 18 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William 

Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 4; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual 

Report, March 2010, 18–20. 
3-8 

and services. The chairman stated that in discussing the relation between WTO and MEA 

trade obligations and information exchange between the WTO and MEA secretariats, 

members highlighted the value of national coordination between their experts on trade 

and their experts on the environment, as well as the value of arranging for WTO members 

and MEA members to exchange their various experiences on trade and environment 

subjects. The chairman added that in regard to the effort to identify an appropriate list of 

environmental goods and services of interest, members moved forward based on the work 

program outlined in the chairman’s July 2008 report, although relatively few new 

proposals were submitted identifying new goods or services of interest. The TNC 

chairman nonetheless reported that a few members had started to table contributions on 

cross-cutting trade and environment issues, and that other members have indicated that 

work had begun on these issues in their capitals.19

Dispute Settlement 

The TNC chairman reported that during 2009, the Special Session of the Dispute 

Settlement Body continued to discuss ways to improve and clarify the WTO Dispute 

Settlement Understanding, based largely on the text drafted by the chairman in July 2008 

that took stock of work accomplished to date. He noted that participants held 

consultations in 2009 on 9 of the 12 issues set out in the chairman’s draft text, with the 

remaining 3 issues slated for discussion in early 2010. The TNC chairman indicated in 

his summary that the group is likely in 2010 to review progress made during these 

consultations, and then assess how to revise the group chairman’s draft text so as to 

conclude discussions as mandated at the WTO ministerial conference in Hong Kong in 

December 2005.20

General Council 

Work Programs, Decisions, and Reviews 

The WTO General Council held six meetings in 2009, on February 3, May 26, July 28, 

October 20, November 17, and December 17–18.21 Members held an additional meeting, 

on April 29–30, 2009, devoted to the appointment of the next WTO Director-General.22

 19 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 5; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William 

Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 4–5; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General 

Council Meeting, November 17, 2009,” November 19, 2009; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 

Annual Report, March 2010, 20–22. 20 WTO, “Tuesday, 17 November 2009—Agenda Item 1—Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee,” November 17, 2009, 5–6; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre 

William Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010, 5; USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 

Annual Report, March 2010, 22–23. 21 WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 February 2009,” March 30, 

2009, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 29–30 April 2009,” June 23, 2009, 

“Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 26–27 May 2009,” August 21, 2009, 

“Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 28 July 2009,” October 7, 2009, “Minutes of 

Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 20 October 2009,” February 26, 2010, “Minutes of 

Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 2010; USDOS, U.S. 

Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, February 3, 2009,” February 5, 2009; USDOS, U.S. 
3-9 

At each session, the General Council heard updates on the current status of the Doha 

Development Agenda from the WTO Director-General and reports by the Chairman of 

the Committee on Trade and Development on the Work Program on Small and 

Vulnerable Economies. Each session also heard concerns raised about the nonrecognition of rights under GATT 1994 related to the EU banana import regime and its 

discrimination against a number of Latin American banana exporters. At the final 

December session, the EU introduced to the WTO General Council the “Geneva 

Agreement on Trade in Bananas” reached with the affected Latin American countries, 

effectively signaling resolution of the dispute.23 Various administrative matters were 

discussed at all sessions as well, involving items such as the WTO pension plan and 

reports from the WTO Committee on Budget, Finance, and Administration. 

At a number of meetings, members discussed the current global financial and economic 

crisis, including proposals to analyze the effects of various national economic stimulus 

packages on international trade.24 At several sessions, members considered and approved 

requests for waiver extensions for preferential trade arrangements (such as AGOA, 

ATPA, and CBERA, and EU preferences for East European countries), as well as waiver 

extensions for several country members concerning the adoption of the 1996 Harmonized 

System trade nomenclature.25 Members also heard reports on consultations held with 

member countries Ecuador and Ukraine regarding restrictions each imposed for balanceof-payments purposes. At most sessions, members also discussed plans for the Seventh 

WTO Conference at Ministerial Level, in Geneva, Switzerland, November 30 to 

December 2, 2009. 

At two sessions, in February and December, members held their biennial review of the 

U.S. exemption under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 that permits the extension of 

provisions found in U.S. legislation (commonly known as the Jones Act) that govern the 

use of domestic- and foreign-built vessels in U.S. maritime cabotage transport.26 The 

General Council agreed that the next review would be held in 2011. In December, the 

members held their eighth annual review of China’s implementation of the WTO 

Agreement under China’s WTO Protocol of Accession. At several meetings, a number of 

developing countries raised concerns about the WTO accession process, such as how 

acceding developing countries can have their views taken more fully into account during 

the accession process. In 2009, the number of WTO members remained at 153, the same 

 

 

Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, July 28, 2009,” August 3, 2009; USDOS, U.S. Mission, 

Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, October 20, 2009,” October 23, 2009; USDOS, U.S. Mission, 

Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, November 17, 2009,” November 19, 2009; USDOS, U.S. Mission, 

Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” December 18, 2009. 22 USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting on Reappointment of DG, April 29–

30, 2009,” May 1, 2009. 23 WTO, “17–18 December 2009—Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas,” December 15, 2009. 

24 WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 29–30 April 2009,” June 23, 

2009; WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 20 October 2009,” February 26, 

2010; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, October 20, 2009,” October 23, 

2009; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” December 

18, 2009. 25 WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 28 July 2009,” October 7, 2009; 

USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, July 28, 2009,” August 3, 2009; USDOS, 

U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” December 18, 2009. 26 WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 February 2009,” March 30, 

2009; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, February 3, 2009,” February 5, 

2009; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” December 

18, 2009. 
3-10 

TABLE 3.1 WTO membership in 2009 

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 Solomon Islands 

Central African Republic Kuwait South Africa 

Chad Kyrgyz Republic Spain 

Chile Latvia Sri Lanka 

China, People’s Republic of Lesotho Suriname 

Chinese Taipeia

 Liechtenstein Swaziland 

Colombia Lithuania Sweden 

Congo, Democratic Republic of Luxembourg Switzerland 

Congo, Republic of Macao, China Tanzania 

Costa Rica Macedonia (FYROM) 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, NL Antilles 

France New Zealand 

Gabon Nicaragua 

Source: WTO, “Members and Observers,” (accessed January 21, 2010). 

 a

 In the WTO, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu is informally referred to as 

“Chinese Taipei”; elsewhere it is also commonly called “Taiwan.” 
3-11 

TABLE 3.2 WTO observers in 2009 

Afghanistan Guinea, Equatorial Samoa 

Algeria Iran São Tomé and Príncipe 

Andorra Iraq Serbia 

Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Seychelles 

Bahamas Laos Sudan 

Belarus Lebanon Tajikistan 

Bhutan Liberia Uzbekistan 

Bosnia and Herzegovina Libya Vanuatu 

Comoros Montenegro Vatican (Holy See) 

Ethiopia Russia Yemen 

Source: WTO, “Members and Observers,” (accessed February 23, 2010). 

as in 2008 (table 3.1). The number of observers also remained unchanged, at 30 (table 

3.2). On July 15, 2009, Chinese Taipei became a signatory to the plurilateral WTO 

Agreement on Government Procurement, bringing membership in that agreement to 14. 

At the General Council sessions early in the year, members discussed the appointment of 

new officers for WTO bodies, including the appointment of the WTO Director-General, 

the latter appointment being addressed at a dedicated session in April. Running 

unopposed, the sitting Director-General, Pascal Lamy, was reappointed for a second 4-

year term. 

The council also heard during the year a number of reports regarding trade “monitoring” 

and “transparency” mechanisms being put in place.27 In July, the council heard a report 

from the Director-General on the second Global Review of Aid for Trade. In November, 

the council heard a report from the Director-General on progress in consultations 

concerning the development assistance aspects of cotton.28 At the December session, 

council members heard about progress concerning the monitoring mechanism being 

devised under the work program on special and differential treatment. They also 

reviewed the transparency mechanism in provisional use for RTAs, and considered a 

proposal tabled in December 2009 for a separate transparency mechanism for preferential 

trade arrangements.29

Dispute Settlement Body 

This section focuses principally on complaints filed, and panel and Appellate Body 

findings and recommendations adopted, under the WTO Dispute Settlement 

Understanding during calendar year 2009.30 Appendix table A.19 shows developments 

during 2009 in the WTO dispute-settlement cases in which the United States was either a 

complainant or respondent. 

 27 WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 28 July 2009,” October 7, 2009; 

USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, July 28, 2009,” August 3, 2009; USDOS, 

U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” December 18, 2009. 28 WTO, “Minutes of Meeting—Held in the Centre William Rappard on 17 November 2009,” March 2, 

2010; USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, November 17, 2009,” November 19, 

2009. 29 USDOS, U.S. Mission, Geneva, “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009,” 

December 18, 2009. 30 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. 
3-12 

The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) establishes a framework for the 

resolution of disputes that arise between members under the WTO agreements.31 Under 

the DSU, a complaining member may file a complaint with the WTO Dispute Settlement 

Body (DSB). The member must first seek to resolve the dispute through consultations 

with the named respondent party.32 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.33 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.34

The findings and recommendations of the Appellate Body and panel (as modified by the 

Appellate Body) are then generally adopted without change by the DSB. 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 its intentions with respect to implementation of adopted recommendations.35 If it is 

impracticable to comply immediately, the party concerned is given a reasonable period of 

time, the latter to be decided either by agreement of the parties and approval by the DSB 

or through arbitration. Further provisions set out rules for compensation or the suspension 

of concessions in the event of non-implementation.36 Within a specified timeframe, 

parties can enter into negotiations to agree on mutually acceptable compensation. When 

the parties fail to reach agreement, a party to the dispute may request authorization of the 

DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations to the other party concerned. 

Disagreements over the proposed level of suspension may be referred to arbitration. 

Litigation relating to implementation and compensation issues has sometimes continued 

for a lengthy period after adoption of the initial panel or Appellate Body report. 

The remainder of this section focuses on dispute-settlement activity during 2009 

involving the United States either as the complainant or the respondent, including new 

requests for dispute-settlement consultations filed, the issues before new panels 

established during 2009, and panel reports and Appellate Body reports issued during 

2009. The summaries in this section are intended to identify key issues raised in the 

complaint, note key procedural events as the case 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 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 government agencies. 

One dispute based on a complaint filed by the United States against China in late 2008 

was resolved during 2009 without resort to a panel. In that dispute, DS387: China–

Grants, Loans and Other Incentives, the United States (and Mexico in a separate 

complaint) challenged various “famous brand” initiatives by China under which certain 

designated enterprises were entitled to various government preferences, including 

financial support tied to exports. The United States alleged that these subsidy programs 

 31 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). 32 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 4. 

33 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 6. 

34 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 17.6. 35 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 21.3. 36 WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, article 22. 
3-13 

were subsidies prohibited under the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) 

Agreement and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.37 The United States filed its request 

for consultations on December 19, 2008. On December 18, 2009, the U.S. Trade 

Representative announced that the United States had reached an agreement with China 

under which China confirmed that it had eliminated numerous subsidies identified by the 

United States as prohibited under WTO rules.38

Several cases with complex issues remained pending before panels throughout 2009 with 

little or no reported activity. For example, disputes involving trade in large civil aircraft 

brought by the United States against the European Communities (EC) 39 (DS316) and by 

the EC against the United States (DS353), in which panels were established in 2005 and 

2006, respectively, remained pending throughout 2009, with panel reports expected in 

2010.40 In addition, litigation in a number of disputes continued well beyond the adoption 

of panel and Appellate Body reports, as parties pressed for implementation of 

recommendations or sought compensation and/or suspension of concessions in the case 

of nonimplementation. During 2009, the United States was involved in several such 

matters, including in reaching agreement in May 2009 with the EC on a temporary 

solution in the beef hormones dispute,41 in continuing to press the EC in resolving 

outstanding issues in the biotech products dispute,42 in arbitration relating to claims by 

the EC and Japan that the United States had not fully complied with DSB 

recommendations relating to “zeroing” in calculating dumping margins,43 and in 

arbitration relating to Brazil’s request for authorization to suspend trade concessions 

against the United States in response to an earlier ruling that certain U.S. agricultural 

subsidies on cotton were inconsistent with U.S. obligations.44

 37 USTR, “United States Files WTO Case Against China Over Illegal Support,” April 26, 2009. 38 USTR, “United States Wins End to China’s “Famous Brand” Subsidies after Challenge at WTO,” 

December 18, 2009. 39 The term EC is used rather than EU in the WTO dispute-settlement section because the source 

documents (WTO online summaries) use EC. 40 See WTO, DSB, online summaries of DS316, European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in 

Large Civil Aircraft; and DS353, United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—Second 

Complaint. 41 On July 13, 2009, the USTR announced that the United States had signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the European Commission that would provide U.S. producers with additional access, at 

zero duty, to the European Union market for beef produced from cattle that have not been treated with 

growth-promoting hormones subject to an import quota of 20,000 tons in each of the first three years, rising 

to 45,000 tons in the fourth year. The parties agreed to suspend their litigation for at least the first 18 months 

of the agreement. USTR, “USTR Announces Agreement With European Union in Beef Hormones Dispute,” 

July 13, 2009. 42 The issue here involved EC implementation of panel report recommendations adopted in December 

2006 relating to EC measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products. In January 2008, the 

United States asked for authority to suspend concessions. The EC objected and, on February 6, 2008, referred 

the matter to arbitration. On February 15, 2008, the EC and United States jointly asked the arbitrator to 

suspend work pursuant to procedures agreed to by the EC and United States. WTO, DSB, DS291: European 

Communities—Measure Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Online Summary. 43 The EC requested establishment of a compliance panel on September 13, 2007, asserting a 

disagreement as to whether the United States had complied with certain DSB recommendations. The 

compliance panel found that the United States had failed to comply with DSB recommendations in 

administrative reviews in two cases reviewed, but that it had not failed to comply with recommendations in 

administrative reviews in three other cases reviewed. WTO, DSB, DS294: United States—Laws, Regulations 

and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), Online Summary. 44 See, e.g., USTR, “USTR Statement on Awards in Brazil Cotton Dispute,” August 31, 2009. On April 

6, 2010, the USTR announced that the United States and Brazil had agreed upon a path toward a negotiated 

settlement with Brazil over the dispute, and that this agreement would avoid the imposition of 
3-14 

New Requests for Consultations and New Panels Established 

During 2009, WTO members filed 14 new requests for WTO dispute-settlement 

consultations as compared to 19 in 2008 and 13 in 2007. Ten new dispute-settlement 

panels, including 2 panels reflecting a consolidation of cases, were established in 2009, as 

compared with 5 panels established in 2008 and 14 in 2007. Table 3.3 lists the 10 panels 

established during 2009 and 13 underlying cases that are the subject of these panels. 

Requests for consultations filed during 2009 in which the United States was the 

complaining party or named respondent 

The United States was the complaining party or named respondent in 5 of the 14 requests 

for dispute-settlement consultations filed during 2009. It was the complaining party in 2 

requests, the first directed against the EC (certain measures affecting imports of U.S. 

poultry) and the second directed against China (certain measures relating to the export of 

raw materials). Consultations were held in response to both complaints, and when the 

parties failed to resolve the dispute, the United States requested establishment of panels 

in the respective cases, and panels were established. The issues raised and year-end 2009 

status are summarized below in the section on panels established during 2009. 

Three complaints named the United States as the respondent. Two were filed by China 

(concerning U.S. measures affecting poultry imports from China and U.S. measures on 

passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China) and the third was filed by Korea 

(concerning U.S. use of zeroing in antidumping measures involving products from 

Korea). As of the end of 2009, a panel had been established in only one of the three 

cases: the one filed by China concerning U.S. poultry measures. 

Panels established during 2009 at the request of the United States 

During 2009, the DSB established two panels at the request of the United States, one to 

consider a U.S. complaint about EC measures affecting U.S. poultry meat exports to the 

EC, and a second to consider complaints filed by the United States, the EC, and Mexico 

concerning measures imposed by China on the exportation of various raw materials. The 

issues raised and procedural histories of both disputes are summarized below. 

European Communities—Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat 

Products from the United States (DS389) 

In this dispute, the United States challenged the EU’s ban on the import and marketing of 

poultry meat and poultry meat products processed with pathogen reduction treatments 

judged safe by both U.S. and European food safety authorities. The United States alleged 

that the measures violate certain provisions of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, 

articles X:1 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994, article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement, and 

article 2 of the TBT Agreement. The United States filed its request for consultations on 

 

countermeasures set to begin on April 7, 2010. USTR, “U.S., Brazil Agree Upon Path Toward Negotiated 

Solution of Cotton Disputes,” April 6, 2010. 
3-15 

TABLE 3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established in 2009 

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name Panel established 

DS379 China United States United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from 

China 

Jan. 20, 2009 

DS381 Mexico United States United States—Measures Concerning the 

Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and 

Tuna Products 

Apr. 20, 2009 

DS382 Brazil United States United States—Anti-Dumping Administrative 

Reviews and Other Measures Related to 

Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil 

Sept. 25, 2009 

DS383 Thailand United States United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand 

Mar. 20, 2009 

DS384 Canada United States United States—Certain Country of Origin 

Labelling (Cool) Requirements 

Nov. 19, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS386) 

DS386 Mexico United States United States—Certain Country of Origin 

Labelling Requirements 

Nov. 19, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS384) 

DS389 United States EC European Communities—Certain Measures 

Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat 

Products 

Nov. 19, 2009 

DS391 Canada Korea Korea—Measures Affecting the Importation of 

Bovine Meat and Meat Products from Canada 

Aug. 31, 2009 

DS392 China United States United States—Certain Measures Affecting 

Imports of Poultry from China 

July 31, 2009 

DS394 United States China China—Measures Related to the Exportation of 

Various Raw Materials 

Dec. 21, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS395 and DS398) 

DS395 EC China China—Measures Related to the Exportation of 

Various Raw Materials 

Dec. 21, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS394 and DS398) 

DS397 China EC European Communities—Definitive AntiDumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel 

Fasteners from China 

Oct. 23, 2009 

DS398 Mexico China China—Measures Related to the Exportation of 

Various Raw Materials 

Dec. 21, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS394 and DS395) 

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes Cases” (accessed February 

4, 2010). 
3-16 

January 16, 2009. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States 

requested establishment of a panel and the DSB established a panel on November 19, 

2009. As of year-end 2009, the panel had not been composed.45 

China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (DS394) 

In this dispute, the United States challenged several forms of restraints imposed by China 

on exports of raw materials, including export quotas, export duties, and other exportrelated administrative measures and costs. The raw materials at issue included bauxite, 

coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon metal, silicon carbide, yellow 

phosphorus, and zinc. According to USTR, “The restraints at issue in this dispute 

significantly distort the international market and provide preferential conditions for 

Chinese industries that use these raw materials.”46 The United States alleged that the 

export restraints violate articles VIII, X, and XI of the GATT 1994 and certain provisions 

of China’s WTO accession protocol. The United States filed its request for consultations 

on June 23, 2009. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States 

requested establishment of a panel. The EC and Mexico in the meantime had filed similar 

complaints (DS395 and DS398, respectively) and requests for panels, and the DSB 

established a single panel on December 21, 2009, to examine the matters raised by the 

three complaints.47 

Panels established during 2009 in which the United States was the named respondent 

During 2009, the DSB established six panels in which the United States was the named 

respondent. As of the end of 2009, panel reports were still pending in all six disputes. The 

six disputes are as follows. 

United States—Definitive China Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Products from China (DS379) 

In this dispute, China challenged determinations and orders of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in several antidumping and countervailing-duty investigations involving 

imports from China (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, and the DSB established a panel on 

 45 WTO, DSB, DS389: European Communities—Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry 

Meat Products from the United States, Online Summary. See also USTR, “U.S. Files WTO Case Challenging 

EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports,” June 22, 2009; USTR, “United States Requests WTO Panel in 

Challenge of EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports,” October 8, 2009. 46 USTR, “United States Requests WTO Panel Against China Over Export Restraints on Raw 

Materials,” November 4, 2009. 47 WTO, DSB, DS394: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, Online 

Summary. See also USTR, “United States Files WTO Case against China over Export Restraints on Raw 

Materials,” June 23, 2009; USTR, “United States Requests WTO Panel against China over Export Restraints 

on Raw Materials,” November 4, 2009. 
3-17 

January 20, 2009. The Director-General, at the request of China, composed the panel on 

March 4, 2009. On November 17, 2009, the chairman of the panel informed the DSB that 

the panel expected to complete its work by May 2010.48 

United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna 

and Tuna Products (DS381) 

In this dispute, Mexico challenged certain U.S. measures relating to the labeling of 

Mexican tuna and tuna products as “dolphin safe” (DS381). Mexico alleged that the U.S. 

measures have the effect of prohibiting the labeling of Mexican tuna and tuna products as 

“dolphin safe” even when the tuna has been harvested by means that comply with 

multilaterally agreed standards. Mexico alleged that these measures are inconsistent with 

articles 2, 5, 6, and 8 of the TBT Agreement and articles I and III of the GATT 1994. 

Mexico requested consultations on October 24, 2008, and after the consultations failed to 

resolve the dispute, requested establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel at its 

meeting on April 20, 2009. At the request of Mexico, the Director-General, on December 

14, 2009, composed the panel.49

United States—Antidumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related to 

Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil (DS382) 

In this dispute, Brazil alleged that certain U.S. laws, regulations, and procedures applied 

in U.S. antidumping duty reviews relating to imports of orange juice from Brazil (DS382) 

are inconsistent with articles II, VI:1, and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, certain articles of the 

Antidumping Agreement, and article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 50 According to 

USTR, Brazil complained that USDOC used “zeroing” in the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on imports of orange juice.51 Brazil requested consultations 

on November 27, 2008, and requested further consultations on May 22, 2009. After 

consultations failed to resolve the dispute, Brazil requested establishment of a panel, and 

the DSB established a panel at its meeting of September 25, 2009. The matter was still 

pending at year-end 2009. 52

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 

 48 WTO, DSB, DS379: United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Products from China, Online Summary. 49 WTO, DSB, DS381: United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of 

Tuna and Tuna Products, Online Summary. 50 WTO, DSB, DS382: United States—Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures 

Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Online Summary. 51 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 98. 52 WTO, DSB, DS382: United States—Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures 

Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Online Summary. 
3-18 

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. Thailand requested consultations 

on November 26, 2008, and, after consultations failed to resolve the dispute, requested 

establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on March 20, 2009. 

The panel’s report was still pending at the end of 2009.53

United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements (DS384 and DS386) 

In this dispute, Canada54 and Mexico,55 in separate complaints, challenged certain U.S. 

country-of-origin labeling requirements in the U.S. Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 

as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill. The requirements are imposed at the retail level for 

certain agricultural commodities, including beef and pork. According to Mexico, the U.S. 

determination of nationality deviates considerably from international country-of-origin 

labeling standards, a situation which has not been justified as necessary to fulfill a 

legitimate objective. Canada and Mexico alleged that the U.S. measures are inconsistent 

with articles III, IX, and X of the GATT 1994, article 2 of the TBT Agreement, or in the 

alternative, article 2, 5, and 7 of the SPS Agreement, and article 2 of the WTO 

Agreement on Rules of Origin. Canada requested consultations on December 1, 2008, 

and Mexico on December 17, 2008; both countries requested further consultations on 

May 7, 2009. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, Canada (on October 7, 

2009) and Mexico (on October 9, 2009) requested establishment of a panel. The DSB 

established a single panel on November 19, 2009.56 

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 alleges 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.57 China 

requested consultations on April 17, 2009. After consultations failed to resolve the 

dispute, China requested establishment of a panel. A panel was established on July 31, 

2009, and composed on September 23, 2009.58 The matter was still pending at year-end 

 53 WTO, DSB, DS383: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

from Thailand, Online Summary. In a report circulated to members on January 22, 2010, the panel found that 

the United States acted inconsistently with article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement. The DSB adopted the 

panel’s report on February 18, 2010. 54 WTO, DSB, DS384: United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling (Cool) Requirements, Online 

Summary. 55 WTO, DSB, DS386: United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements, Online 

Summary. 56 See WTO, DSB, online summaries cited in two preceding footnotes above; see also USTR, “Vilsack, 

Kirk Comment on Canadian Panel Request Regarding Country-of-Origin Labeling,” October 7, 2009. 57 Under U.S. law, poultry and poultry products may not be imported from any foreign country unless 

USDA determines that the food safety standards, facilities, and conditions of that country achieve a level of 

sanitary protection equivalent to that achieved by U.S. standards. If USDA determines that a country 

achieves this level of protection for some or all poultry products, it issues a rule permitting import of such 

products, subject to border inspection and other requirements. USTR, “USDA, USTR Applaud Agreement by 

Congressional Appropriators on Poultry Imports from China,” September 25, 2009. 58 WTO, DSB, DS392: United States—Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China, 

Online Summary. 
3-19 

2009. However, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation in late September 2009 that sought 

to address the issue.59

Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or Adopted during 2009 That 

Involve the United States 

During 2009, panels and/or the Appellate Body issued reports in original disputes60 in 

three cases in which the United States was the complainant or a respondent (table 3.4). 

As noted above, several other disputes before panels in which the United States was 

either the complainant or a respondent were pending during the year. 

Reports in which the United States was the complainant 

China—Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property 

Rights (DS362) 

In this dispute, the United States challenged certain Chinese measures pertaining to the 

protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China, including under 

China’s copyright law, and alleged that the measures are inconsistent with China’s 

obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. The United States challenged, among other 

things, China’s lack of criminal procedures and penalties for commercial-scale 

counterfeiting and piracy in China; China’s requirement that infringing goods be released 

into the channels of commerce; and China’s denial of copyright and related rights 

protection and enforcement to creative works of authorship, sound recordings, and 

performances that have not been authorized for publication or distribution within China. 

The panel was established in September 2007. In a report circulated on January 26, 2009, 

the panel concluded that certain provisions of China’s copyright law and certain customs 

measures are inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement and recommended that China bring 

its copyright law and the customs measures into conformity with its obligations under the 

TRIPS Agreement. The DSB adopted the panel report on March 20, 2009. On June 29, 

2009, China and the United States agreed that China should implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings by March 20, 2010.61

China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain 

Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (DS363) 

In this dispute, the United States alleged that various Chinese measures—ones that 

reserve trading rights for certain publications and audiovisual entertainment products to 

Chinese state-designated and wholly or partially state-owned enterprises, as well as 

others that impose market access restrictions or discriminatory limitations on foreign 

service providers seeking to engage in the distribution of publications and certain 

audiovisual home-entertainment (AVHE) products—are inconsistent with China’s 

 59 USTR, “USDA, USTR Applaud Agreement by Congressional Appropriators on Poultry Imports from 

China,” September 25, 2009. 60 As opposed to panel and Appellate Body reports issued in subsequent compliance proceedings. 61 WTO, DSB, DS362: China—Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual 

Property Rights, Online Summary. See also USTR, “United States Wins WTO Dispute Over Deficiencies in 

China’s Intellectual Property Rights Laws,” June 22, 2009. 
3-20 

TABLE 3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body reports adopted in 2009 

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name Reported adopted 

DS339 EC China China—Measures Affecting Imports of 

Automobile Parts 

Jan. 12, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS340 and 

DS342) 

DS340 United States China China—Measures Affecting Imports of 

Automobile Parts 

Jan. 12, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS339 and 

DS342) 

DS342 Canada China China—Measures Affecting Imports of 

Automobile Parts 

Jan. 12, 2009 

(single panel with 

DS339 and 

DS340) 

DS350 EC United States United States—Continued Existence and 

Application of Zeroing Methodology 

Feb. 19, 2009 

DS362 United States China China—Measures Affecting the Protection and 

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 

Mar. 20, 2009 

DS366 Panama Colombia Colombia—Indicative Prices and Restrictions on 

Ports of Entry 

May 20, 2009 

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological list of disputes cases” (accessed February 

4, 2010). 

obligations under its Protocol of Accession, the GATT 1994, and the General Agreement 

on Trade in Services (GATS). A panel was established on November 27, 2007. 

In its report circulated on August 12, 2009, the panel concluded that a number of China’s 

measures were inconsistent with China’s obligations under the Protocol of Accession 

because such measures restricted the right of enterprises in China—and, in some cases, 

foreign enterprises and foreign individuals—to import reading materials, films, AVHE 

products, and sound recordings. The panel further found that various Chinese measures 

imposing requirements relating to registered capital and operating terms for the 

distribution of reading materials are likewise inconsistent with China’s national treatment 

commitments under GATS and article II:4 of the GATT 1994. China and the United 

States appealed various aspects of the panel report to the Appellate Body. In a report 

circulated on December 21, 2009, the Appellate Body upheld most of the panel’s 

conclusions. The Appellate Body report was adopted by the DSB at its meeting on 

January 19, 2010.62

 62 WTO, DSB, DS363: China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain 

Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Online Summary. See also USTR, “World Trade 

Organization Report Upholds U.S. Trade Claims Against China,” August 12, 2009; USTR, “WTO Appellate 

Body Confirms Finding Against China’s Treatment of Certain Copyright-Intensive Products,” December 21, 

2009. 
3-21 

Reports in which the United States was the respondent 

United States—Continued Existence and Application of U.S. Zeroing Methodology 

(DS350) 

In this dispute, the EC challenged U.S. “zeroing” methodology in calculating the margin 

of dumping, including the methodology set out in Commerce’s implementing regulation 

and Commerce’s Antidumping Manual (1997 edition). In a report circulated on October 

1, 2008, the panel found that the United States acted inconsistently with its obligations 

(1) under article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement, by using model zeroing in four 

investigations at issue; (2) under article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and article 9.3 of the 

Antidumping Agreement, by applying simple zeroing in 29 periodic reviews at issue; and 

(3) under article 11.3 of the Antidumping Agreement, by using, in the eight sunset 

reviews at issue, dumping margins obtained through model zeroing in prior 

investigations. Both the EC and United States appealed the panel’s findings, and the 

Appellate Body, in a report issued on February 9, 2009, affirmed the panel report in part, 

and reversed it in part, and recommended that the United States bring its measures into 

conformity with GATT 1994 and the Antidumping Agreement. On February 19, 2009, 

the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report (as modified by the 

Appellate Body report). 

On March 20, 2009, the United States informed the DSB that it intended to bring its 

measures into conformity with its WTO obligations. On June 2, 2009, the United States 

and the EC notified the DSB that a reasonable period of time for the United States to 

implement the DSB recommendations and rulings would be 10 months, with the period 

expiring on December 19, 2009. On January 4, 2010, the EU and the United States 

notified the DSB of agreed procedures under articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.63 

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. In 2009, the 30 OECD members were Australia, Austria, Belgium, 

Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, 

Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, 

Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, 

Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.64

In 2009, the OECD ranked among its top priorities providing support to members to help 

overcome the severe financial and economic crisis unfolding since 2008. The 

organization has focused in particular on helping member governments improve their 

economic stimulus packages and social policies in order to raise short-term economic 

 63 WTO, DSB, DS350: United States—Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology, 

Online Summary. 64 Twenty countries originally signed the Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development on December 14, 1960 at Paris, France, and became founding members. Since then, 11 

countries have joined. Chile joined on May 10, 2010. For further details, see the OECD Web site, 

http://www.oecd.org/. On May 10, 2010, OECD countries invited Estonia, Israel, and Slovenia to become 

members. OECD, “Accession: Estonia, Israel and Slovenia invited to join OECD,” May 10, 2010. 
3-22 

activity, and thus achieve a more sustainable economic growth path over the long term. 

The OECD continued to monitor the impact of the crisis on emerging economies and 

developing countries as well in an effort to help these countries reach sustainable 

economic growth. 

A core part of the OECD’s mission is to negotiate economic and social instruments, 

decisions, and recommendations to promote common rules and policies in areas such as 

combating bribery in international business, improving information and communications 

policy, taxation, and the environment. Nonmembers as well as members may join these 

agreements. For example, Brazil joined OECD members in signing in 2007 revised 

provisions of the Aircraft Sector Understanding, an annex to the 1978 OECD Export 

Credit Arrangement. Brazil is a major regional aircraft producer, yet is not an OECD 

member. 

Through its Enhanced Engagement forum the OECD maintains a dialogue with a number 

of major nonmember countries—currently Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South 

Africa. The intent is to establish a cooperative structure regarding matters of mutual 

economic policy interest. In addition, four countries—Estonia, Israel, Russia, and 

Slovenia—are candidates for accession to the OECD. Chile joined on May10, 2010. 

Ministerial Council Meeting

At the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting held June 24–25, 2009, the Secretary-General 

highlighted the strategic directions proposed for the coming 2009–10 year, which focused 

on the global financial and economic crisis unfolding since 2008 and in particular on the 

role the OECD could play in suggesting appropriate policy responses.65

At the meeting, the Secretariat presented the interim OECD Economic Outlook 2009.

66

Related discussions revolved initially around the short-term economic outlook and risks, 

including ongoing monetary policy measures in support of national recovery efforts; 

fiscal stimulus packages, their size, impact, duration, and structure; and issues concerning 

the financial consolidation involved with this fiscal stimulus, to counter any threat to 

fiscal sustainability given the increase in the public debt planned in many countries. 

Growing unemployment and pressures on pension systems, as well as the impact of the 

economic crisis on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), were also key issues 

discussed by ministers. 

Discussions subsequently progressed to longer-term economic issues, as ministers 

discussed how to restore strength to the financial system and exit from the financial 

interventions currently in place. Promoting policies to establish sound regulatory, 

competition, and governance structures were key items under examination, as well as 

how to advance the exchange of tax information and increase transparency to help reduce 

the risk of future crises. The ministers discussed the role played by the OECD in global 

economic policy cooperation through liaisons with other international organizations, and 

through various economic and political groupings, notably the G8 and G20 countries, 

 65 OECD, “2009 Ministerial Council Meeting: Follow-up,” July 15, 2009; OECD, “2009 Ministerial 

Council Meeting: Follow-up,” September 11, 2009; OECD, “2009 Ministerial Council Meeting: Follow-up,” 

October 8, 2009; OECD. Annual Report, 2009, 8–25; USDOS, “OECD Ministerial Council Meeting (MCM) 

2009,” July 15, 2009. 66 Subsequently finalized as OECD, Economic Outlook 86, November 2009. 
3-23 

where OECD support is aimed at helping governments strengthen their responses to the 

current global recession. 

Ministers considered the current economic crisis as a possible opportunity to address 

challenges regarding climate change. They reasoned that by adopting environmental 

measures favoring more environmentally sustainable growth, economic recovery plans 

could be oriented toward achieving more low-carbon economic progress while also 

providing a multiplier effect in terms of job creation and mobilizing private sector 

investment. Ministers voiced views that the present economic crisis might provide an 

opportunity to reform economic policies by reducing or eliminating subsidies on both 

production and consumption of fossil fuels, expanding investment in alternative energy 

sources and pollution control, and disseminating information—in particular concerning 

technology that is more oriented toward environmental issues. 

Ministers discussed how to prevent protectionism in trade and investment from 

threatening global economic recovery and long-term growth. Members agreed to 

continue monitoring medium- and long-term export financing, and their commitments to 

support nondiscrimination in trade matters—for example, the commitments voiced at the 

G20 London summit meeting, held April 2, 2009. Concluding the Doha Round was again 

stressed as a key element in keeping markets open for trade and investment flows. 

Trade Committee 

At their 152nd session meeting, April 28–29, 2009, the OECD Trade Committee 

reaffirmed its support for continued work in the areas of trade in services and nontariff 

measures. The committee also noted the importance of work on the WTO’s “Trade 

Facilitation” and “Aid for Trade” programs in light of the global economic downturn, and 

said it would continue to cooperate with the WTO on such issues.67 The committee 

discussed the key messages highlighted in recently released OECD research on 

globalization and emerging economies. This research supported three conclusions in 

particular concerning trade: (1) that trade openness has proven quite beneficial for the 

world economy, including the “BRIICS” countries of Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, 

China, and South Africa; (2) that trade protection is a poor way to tackle economic 

problems; and (3) that trade liberalization thus remains a priority, especially through a 

multilateral approach. Subsequent discussion of possible OECD responses to the global 

financial crisis and economic recession touched on how to resist trade protectionism and 

successfully conclude the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The discussion 

noted that similar to more traditional border measures (such as tariff and nontariff 

measures), domestic policy measures—such as subsidies or stimulus measures taken to 

reduce unemployment—could have protectionist effects that would worsen the economic 

downturn, and should be monitored to avoid these effects. The committee suggested 

possible policy topics for future consideration, including limits on access to raw materials 

as a nontariff measure, the transparency of trade-related domestic regulations, and the 

issue of regionalism and regional trade agreements. 

At their 153rd session meeting October 27–29, 2009, the Trade Committee discussed the 

effects of members’ responses to the global economic crisis, including sectoral policies 

 67 OECD, “Summary Record of the 152nd Session of the Trade Committee: Plenary Session,” July 27, 

2009; OECD, “Summary Record of the 152nd Session of the Trade Committee: Confidential Session,” July 

27, 2009. 
3-24 

and related subsidies; discriminatory government procurement measures; trade finance; 

and protectionism related to environmental policies.68 The committee noted ongoing 

work involving data verification and methodology refinement undertaken in the 

development of a Services Trade Restrictiveness Index, which covers protectionist 

measures applied in the areas of computer services, construction, professional services, 

and telecommunications. The committee also heard reports from the Market Openness 

Reviews held during the year for Chile, Israel, Estonia, and Slovenia, all countries 

engaged in the OECD membership accession process. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

APEC is an international organization that consists of Pacific Basin countries seeking to 

enhance intra-regional economic growth and cooperation.69 The organization operates as 

a cooperative, multilateral economic and trade group, whose decisions are made by 

consensus, and whose commitments are undertaken voluntarily. APEC leaders meet 

annually to provide direction to the organization in the form of action-oriented work 

programs, and to define priorities for its committees, working groups, senior officials 

meetings, and special task groups. Since its inception, APEC has aimed to facilitate 

economic growth, trade, investment, and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.70 To 

reach its objectives, member countries committed to the “Bogor Goals” in 1994, which 

set forth a timetable for creating a free and open trade and investment area in the AsiaPacific region by 2010 for the industrialized countries, and by 2020 for the developing 

countries. In subsequent years, various annual APEC initiatives have been undertaken to 

provide member countries with direction on how to successfully meet the long-term 

objectives initially agreed upon in Bogor, Indonesia.71

At the November 2009 annual APEC summit in Singapore, ministers agreed to review 

progress toward the Bogor Goals, made commitments to long-term multilateral trade 

negotiations, and produced a new set of guidelines for balanced economic growth. The 

November meeting also represented the culmination of a year-long effort by the 

Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) to increase regional economic integration by 

lowering barriers to trade and improving the international business environment. 

 68 OECD, “Summary Record of the 153rd Session of the Trade Committee: Plenary Session,” January 

13, 2010, 2; OECD, “Summary Record of the 153rd Session of the Trade Committee: Confidential Session,” 

January 19, 2010. 69 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; South 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, 2010; and the APEC Web site, 

http://www.apec.org/. 70 APEC, APEC at a Glance, 2010. 71 APEC, Outcomes & Outlook 2009–10, 2010. 
3-25 

The 2010 Bogor Goal Target, FTAAP, and Related APEC 

Commitments 

In 2009, ministers agreed to establish a “credible and meaningful mechanism” to assess 

the achievement of the 2010 Bogor Goal target for free trade and investment in the region 

among industrialized member countries.72 Four APEC members contributed to a report 

on a possible Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which was presented at the 

November 2009 meeting. The report examined economic benefits and challenges of 

FTAAP, listed issues that would need to be addressed in preparation for negotiations, and 

studied convergences and divergences in various Asian-Pacific regional and bilateral 

trade agreements.73 Ministers committed to reaching a conclusion to the Doha Round in 

2010 and endorsed recommendations by the APEC Secretariat on specific areas of 

cooperation with the WTO, such as the Aid for Trade agenda.74 As a response to the 

continuing economic crisis and declining levels of trade worldwide, trade ministers 

committed in July 2009 to keep markets open and refrain from protectionist measures 

until the end of 2010, even if such measures were deemed WTO-consistent.75

Nonetheless, a report compiled by the APEC Secretariat for the November 2009 meeting 

found that use of trade remedies had increased throughout the region despite an overall 

relative openness to trade during 2009.76 At the APEC leaders’ meeting, heads of state 

endorsed a “new growth paradigm,” based on a rebalancing of the global economy; an 

inclusive approach to free trade through retraining of vulnerable workers, 

maintenance/reinforcement of social safety nets, and promotion of small enterprises; and 

a sustainable approach to climate change consistent with international trade obligations.77 

Regional Economic Integration 

In order to accelerate the regional integration agenda and progress toward the Bogor 

Goals, the CTI produced new initiatives designed to liberalize trade and enhance supply 

chain connectivity.78 In October 2009, the APEC Pathfinder Initiative for SelfCertification of Origin (“Pathfinder”) was launched. The 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. The Pathfinder includes 

seven APEC members, who will initiate the process and share best practices with future 

participants.79 The CTI also produced a set of Services Principles intended to help 

 72 APEC, “Joint Statement at 21st APEC Ministerial Meeting,” November 12, 2009. 73 Members who contributed to this report include Australia, China, South Korea, and New Zealand. For 

more information, see APEC, Further Analytical Study on the Likely Economic Impact of an FTAAP, 2009. 74 APEC, “Joint Statement at 21st APEC Ministerial Meeting,” November 12, 2009. 75 APEC, “Joint Statement at 21st APEC Ministerial Meeting,” November 12, 2009. 76 APEC, Key Trends and Developments Relating to Trade and Investment Measures and Their Impact 

on the APEC Region, 2009. 77 APEC, “Leaders’ Declaration 2009,” November 15, 2009. 

78 APEC, “Joint Statement at 21st APEC Ministerial Meeting,” November 12, 2009. 79 The seven participating countries are Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South 

Korea, and the United States. For more information, see APEC, “APEC Ministers Take Concrete Actions to 

Improve Business Environment,” November 12, 2009; APEC Committee on Trade and Investment, Annual 

Report to Ministers, 2009. Appendix I. 
3-26 

members’ policies on trade in services converge by assembling them into a single 

document, and a Services Action Plan to guide APEC’s work on services trade 

promotion.80 APEC ministers agreed to develop measures to address eight critical 

impediments that were identified in regional supply chains. These impediments 

encompassed regulatory issues, lack of coordination between customs agencies, and 

inadequate transport networks and infrastructure.81

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, using the World Bank EoDB indicators as a 

reference, and assigned countries to act as coordinating “Champion Economies” for each 

area. The Champion Economies run seminars and working groups where best practices 

are shared between APEC members, and countries create work plans for regulatory 

reform. The five priority areas include starting a business (led by the United States and 

New Zealand); getting credit (Japan); enforcing contracts (South Korea); trading across 

borders (Hong Kong, China, and Singapore); and dealing with permits (Singapore).82 

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), an agreement focused 

on combating the counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property, began in 2008. In 

June 2009, the USTR stated that ACTA negotiations would continue under President 

Obama and identified opportunities for improving transparency and increasing public 

input into the negotiation process.83

ACTA negotiating parties include Australia, Canada, the European Union and its 27 

member states, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, 

Switzerland, and the United States.84 The ACTA negotiating text reportedly focuses on 

improving the enforcement of intellectual property rights and is modeled after the 

intellectual property enforcement provisions of U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, 

Morocco, Singapore, and South Korea.85 The parties aim to conclude ACTA negotiations 

in 2010.86

 80 APEC Committee on Trade and Investment, Annual Report to Ministers, 2009. Appendices IV and V. 81 APEC, “APEC Ministers Take Concrete Actions to Improve Business Environment,” November 12, 

2009. 82 APEC, “APEC Ministers Take Concrete Actions to Improve Business Environment,” November 12, 

2009; APEC, “Joint Statement at 21st APEC Ministerial Meeting,” November 12, 2009. 83 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 160. 84 USTR, “The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,” November 6, 2009, 1. 85 Kirk, letter to Senator Ron Wyden, January 28, 2010, 2. 

86 Following the eighth round of ACTA negotiations held April 12–16, 2010, in Wellington, New 

Zealand, USTR announced April 16, 2010, that participants had reached agreement on a draft text to be made 

available to the public. Participants in the negotiations included Australia, Canada, the European Union 

(represented by the European Commission, the EU Presidency (Spain) and EU member states), Japan, Korea, 

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

Statement Regarding Recent ACTA Negotiations in New Zealand,” April 16, 2010. USTR released the 

“Consolidated Text Prepared for Public Release” of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on April 21, 

2010; it can be found at http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1883. 
4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

U.S. Free Trade Agreements

This chapter summarizes developments related to U.S. free trade agreements during 

2009. It describes trends in U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners during 2009, 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 2009

The United States was a party to 11 FTAs as of December 31, 2009.1

 These include the 

U.S.-Oman FTA, which entered into force in 2009; a multiparty agreement with the 

countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic that entered into force with the 

Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua in 2006–07, and 

with Costa Rica in 2009; the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) (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 2009, total two-way merchandise trade between the United States and its FTA partners 

was $832.5 billion, or one-third of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. 

merchandise exports to FTA partners decreased by 19.4 percent to $357.8 billion from 

2008 to 2009, but still accounted for 38.2 percent of total U.S. exports. U.S. imports of 

goods from FTA partners decreased 24.2 percent to $474.7 billion and accounted for 30.6 

percent of U.S. imports from the world. 

The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its FTA partners decreased by $64.8 billion 

during the same period, dropping to $116.8 billion in 2009 (table 4.1). The U.S. 

merchandise deficit with its NAFTA partners was $123.5 billion, a decrease of $73.7 

billion from 2008. Excluding NAFTA, the United States registered a collective trade 

surplus with its FTA partners of $6.7 billion, down from $15.6 billion in 2008. The FTA 

partners with which the United States recorded a merchandise trade surplus in 2009 were 

Jordan, Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, the CAFTA-DR region, Oman, 

and Peru, while the United States continued to have merchandise trade deficits with 

Canada, Israel, and Mexico. 

The value of U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions decreased 18.8 percent during 

2008–09, falling from $329.8 billion in 2008 to $240.3 billion in 2009 (table 4.2). 

Approximately 55 percent of total imports from NAFTA partners entered the United 

States under NAFTA provisions in 2009. The United States remained the largest source 

 1

 Since the U.S.-Singapore FTA in 2004, the modifications to the HTS required to implement each FTA 

can be found at USITC Tariff Information Center Web site, 

http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/other/rel_doc/annex/index.htm. 
4-2 

TABLE 4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, total trade, 2007–09, millions of dollars 

 2007 2008 2009 

Exports: 

Israel 9,940 10,238 6,237 

NAFTA 332,500 353,932 277,413 

 Canada 213,119 222,424 171,695 

 Mexico 119,381 131,507 105,718 

Jordan 832 904 1,165 

Singapore 23,577 25,655 19,924 

Chile 7,610 11,367 8,694 

Australia 17,917 20,948 18,244 

Morocco 1,334 1,506 1,584 

Bahrain 565 779 629 

CAFTA–DRa

 16,176 18,875 18,850 

Oman – – 1,065 

Perub

 – – 4,022 

FTA partner total 410,451 444,205 357,826 

World total 1,046,358 1,169,821 936,745 

FTA partner share of world total (percent) 39.2 38.0 38.2 

Imports: 

Israel 20,817 22,264 18,743 

NAFTA 522,663 551,168 400,893 

 Canada 312,505 334,840 224,584 

 Mexico 210,159 216,328 176,309 

Jordan 1,333 1,139 924 

Singapore 19,080 15,718 15,588 

Chile 8,969 8,182 6,047 

Australia 8,633 10,535 7,998 

Morocco 626 880 467 

Bahrain 626 517 463 

CAFTA–DRa

 14,239 15,387 18,816 

Oman – – 883 

Perub

 – – 3,834 

FTA partner total 596,987 625,790 474,656 

World total 1,942,863 2,090,483 1,549,163 

FTA partner share of world total (percent) 30.7 29.9 30.6 

 
4-3 

TABLE 4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, total trade, 2007–09, million of dollars–Continued

 2007 2008 2009 

Trade balance: 

Israel –10,877 –12,026 –12,506 

NAFTA –190,163 –197,236 –123,480 

 Canada –99,386 –112,415 –52,889 

 Mexico –90,778 –84,821 –70,591 

Jordan –501 –234 241 

Singapore –1,359 3,184 2,646 

Chile 4,496 9,937 4,336 

Australia 9,283 10,413 10,246 

Morocco 708 626 1,117 

Bahrain –60 262 165 

CAFTA–DRa

 1,937 3,488 34 

Oman – – 182 

Perub

 – – 188 

FTA partner total –186,536 –181,586 –116,829 

World total –896,505 –920,661 –612,419 

FTA partner share of world total (percent) 20.8 19.7 19.1 

Source: USDOC. a

 CAFTA–DR was in force for the Dominican Republic for part of 2007 and for Costa Rica beginning 

January 1, 2009. 

b FTA was in force for part of 2009. 

of imports for NAFTA partners Canada (accounting for 51.6 percent of Canada’s 

imports), and Mexico (48.1 percent of Mexico’s imports) in 2009. More than 50 percent 

of total U.S. imports from Chile, Bahrain, El Salvador, Honduras, the Dominican 

Republic, and Oman entered under FTA provisions. On the other hand, less than 30 

percent of total imports from Israel, Jordan, Singapore, Morocco, Costa Rica, and Peru 

entered under FTA provisions. Imports entered under FTA provisions accounted for 15.5 

percent of total U.S. imports in 2009, a decrease from 15.8 percent in 2008. 

FTA Developments During 2009 

Two new FTAs became effective at the beginning of 2009. On January 1, 2009, the U.S.-

Oman FTA entered into force, allowing immediate duty-free access to Oman for virtually 

all U.S. exports of industrial and consumer products, as well as for goods comprising 87 

percent of Oman’s agricultural tariff lines.2

 For all remaining products, Oman will phase 

out duties over the next 10 years. Also on January 1, 2009, a December 23, 2008, 

Presidential proclamation implementing the CAFTA-DR for Costa Rica became 

effective.3

 Costa Rica was the last of the signatory countries to implement the CAFTADR. 

 2

 73 Fed. Reg. 80289 (December 31, 2008). 

3

 73 Fed. Reg. 79585 (December 30, 2008). 
4-4 

TABLE 4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2007–09 

FTA partner 2007 2008 2009 

% change, 

2008–09 

 Millions of $ 

Israel 2,755 3,209 2,493 –22.3 

NAFTA 293,057 306,593 219,664 –28.4 

 Canada 158,984 166,077 112,373 –32.3 

 Mexico 134,073 140,516 107,291 –23.6 

Jordan 313 280 240 –14.3 

Singapore 935 1,018 850 –16.5 

Chile 5,001 4,454 3,453 –22.5 

Australia 3,155 4,356 2,758 –36.7 

Morocco 176 161 114 –29.0 

Bahrain 199 288 258 –10.5 

CAFTA–DRa 8,289 9,410 9,009 –4.3 

 El Salvador 1,490 1,685 1,425 –15.4 

 Guatemala 1,286 1,635 1,354 –17.2 

 Honduras 2,855 3,016 2,469 –18.1 

 Nicaragua 706 816 783 –4.1 

 Dominican Republic 1,952 2,259 1,802 –20.2 

 Costa Rica – – 1,176 (b

) 

Oman – – 456 (b

) 

Peruc

 – – 981 (b) 

 Total imports under FTA provisions 313,879 329,770 240,276 –27.1 

 World 1,942,863 2,090,483 1,549,163 –25.9 

 

 Share of total imports from FTA partner 

Israel 13.2 14.4 13.3 

NAFTA 56.1 55.6 54.8 

 Canada 50.9 49.6 50.0 

 Mexico 63.8 65.0 60.9 

Jordan 23.5 24.6 26.0 

Singapore 4.9 6.5 5.5 

Chile 55.8 54.4 57.1 

Australia 36.5 41.4 34.5 

Morocco 28.2 18.3 24.5 

Bahrain 31.8 55.7 55.6 

CAFTA–DRa 55.9 61.2 47.9 

 El Salvador 72.9 75.7 78.2 

 Guatemala 42.4 47.5 43.2 

 Honduras 72.4 74.3 73.8 

 Nicaragua 43.9 47.8 48.6 

 Dominican Republic 46.3 57.1 54.5 

 Costa Rica – – 21.0 

Oman – – 51.7 

Peruc

 – – 23.2 

Source: USDOC. a CAFTA–DR in force for the Dominican Republic for part of 2007 and Costa Rica beginning January 1, 2009. b Not applicable. 

c FTA in force for part of 2009. 
4-5 

A third FTA took effect shortly afterwards. The U.S.-Peru TPA was implemented on 

February 1, 2009, allowing 80 percent of U.S. industrial and consumer goods and more 

than two-thirds of U.S. farm exports to enter Peru duty-free. For all remaining products, 

duties will be phased out over the next 10 years. The agreement also lowers Peru’s 

barriers to U.S. services, provides a secure legal framework for investors, and mandates 

effective protection for intellectual property, labor rights, and the environment.4

For the first time since 2007, the Joint Committee of the U.S.-Israel Free Trade 

Agreement met on December 14, 2009. During the meeting, the committee discussed 

issues involving bilateral trade, investment, and economic matters, including oversight of 

the FTA.5

The status of many pending FTAs remained unchanged throughout 2009. FTAs with 

Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, which were signed by both parties in previous 

years and approved by the partner governments in the cases of Colombia and Panama, 

were all still awaiting congressional approval as of the end of 2009.6

 There were no 

changes in the status of other previously initiated FTA negotiations with Ecuador, the 

Southern African Customs Union, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), or 

countries involved with the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The status of U.S. FTA 

negotiations during 2009 is shown in table 4.3. 

Since July 2007, the President has remained without Trade Promotion Authority, the 

statutory authority to negotiate trade agreements that the Congress can approve or 

disapprove, but cannot amend.7

 Trade Promotion Authority is a pact whereby the 

Executive Branch agrees to consult with Congress during the negotiations and Congress 

agrees to hold an “up or down” vote on the agreement. After receiving legislation to 

implement the agreement, Congress has a maximum of 90 legislative days to vote on the 

legislation.8

U.S.-Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 

On September 23, 2008, the United States announced that it would enter negotiations to 

join the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP). Current members of the 

TPP include Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. The first round of 

negotiations to expand the TPP to include the United States, Australia, Peru, and Vietnam 

was scheduled to take place in March 2009, but was suspended in February when the 

United States requested a postponement to accommodate the incoming Obama 

administration. On November 14, 2009, President Obama affirmed that the United States 

would resume negotiations with TPP countries and other economies in the Asia-Pacific 

 4

 USTR, “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab Regarding Entry into Force of the 

Peru FTA,” January 16, 2009. 5

 USTR, “USTR and Israel Hold FTA Joint Committee Meeting,” December 15, 2009. 6

 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 135, 142; USTR, Colombia 

FTA, found at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/colombia-fta; and USTR, 

Panama FTA, found at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/panama-tpa. Korea has 

not yet approved the U.S.-Korea FTA. 7

 The Trade Act of 2002 (title XXII of the Trade Act of 2002) was enacted on August 2, 2002. 8

 USTR, “U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: How Trade Promotion Authority Works,” April 8, 

2008. 
4-6 

TABLE 4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2009 

FTA partner(s) 

Negotiations 

launched 

Negotiations 

concluded 

Agreement 

signed by parties 

Date of entry 

into force 

Central America and the Dominican Republic: 

 El Salvador Jan. 8, 2003 Dec. 17, 2003 May 28, 2004 Mar. 1, 2006 

 Honduras and Nicaragua Jan. 8, 2003 Dec. 17, 2003 May 28, 2004 Apr. 1, 2006 

 Guatemala Jan. 8, 2003 Dec. 17, 2003 May 28, 2004 July 1, 2006 

 Dominican Republic Jan. 14, 2003 Mar. 15, 2004 Aug. 5, 2004 Mar. 1, 2007 

 Costa Rica Jan. 8, 2003 Jan. 25, 2004 May 28, 2004 Jan. 1, 2009 

Oman Mar. 12, 2005 Oct. 3, 2005 Jan. 19, 2006 Jan. 1, 2009 

Peru May 18, 2004 Dec. 7, 2005 Apr. 12, 2006 Feb. 1, 2009 

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 Strategic Economic Partnership 

(Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New 

Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) Dec. 14, 2009 – – – 

Source: USTR, various press releases, http://www.ustr.gov. 

Note: No negotiations have taken place for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) since 2005; for the Southern 

Africa Customs Union (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland), Ecuador, Thailand, and the United 

Arab Emirates since 2006; for Malaysia since 2008. 

 

region to conclude a regional trade agreement.9

 USTR notified Congress on December 

14, 2009, of the administration’s intent to enter into negotiations with the TPP.10 The TPP 

is intended to build upon the FTAs already signed by the United States with Singapore, 

Chile, Peru, and Australia. The first round of negotiations took place in Melbourne, 

Australia, March 14–19, 2010, and the second round is scheduled for June.11

In the past three years (2007–09), TPP countries have been important destinations for 

U.S. exports such as heavy and light fuel oil, oil and gas field machinery, civil aircraft 

and parts, motor vehicles, and gold bullion. Imports from TPP countries during these 

years have included goods such as therapeutic medications; copper cathodes; magnetic 

disk drives; frozen, boneless bovine meat cuts; and cotton sweaters, pullovers, and 

similar apparel. U.S. merchandise exports to these markets averaged $60.9 billion over 

2007–09, and U.S. merchandise imports from these markets averaged $53.6 billion, 

resulting in a U.S. trade surplus with TPP countries (table 4.4). If concluded, this trade 

agreement would be the second largest in terms of total trade covered after NAFTA, 

measuring approximately one-third the value of average total two-way merchandise trade 

under NAFTA during the same period. Following the first session of TPP discussions, the 

USTR announced that it would seek further guidance from the U.S. Congress and other 

stakeholders regarding negotiating objectives and approaches, including requesting the 

 9

 USDOS, Secretary of State, “Information Regarding U.S. Announcement of Intent to Participate in 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement,” November 14, 2009; USTR, “Trans-Pacific Partnership 

Agreement,” December 14, 2009; “USTR Ron Kirk Remarks on Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations,” 

December 15, 2009. 10 74 Fed. Reg. 66720 (December 16, 2009); USTR, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Announcement,” 

December 14, 2009; USTR, “USTR Ron Kirk Remarks On Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations,” 

December 15, 2009; and USTR, “USTR Staff Meet with Trans-Pacific Partnership Counterparts, Prepare for 

Congressional Consultations on TPP,” December 8, 2009. 11 USTR, “USTR Negotiators Report Successful First Round Of Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks,” 

March 19, 2010. 
4-7 

TABLE 4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with potential TPP partners,a 2007–09 

Trade with TPP 

partners 2007 2008 2009 

% change, 

2008–09 

 Millions of $ 

U.S. Exports 57,511 68,880 56,329 –18.2 

U.S. Imports 55,866 56,159 48,812 –13.1 

Trade balance 1,645 12,721 7,517 –40.9 

Source: USDOC. 

 a Potential partners include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, 

Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. 

Commission to provide advice with regard to the probable economic effect of providing 

duty-free treatment for imports from the seven TPP countries.12

North American Free Trade Agreement 13

The North American Free Trade Agreement, an 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.14 In 2009, total two-way (exports plus imports) U.S. 

merchandise trade with NAFTA partners decreased by 25.1 percent over 2008, with U.S.-

Canada merchandise trade amounting to $396.3 billion and U.S.-Mexico merchandise 

trade totaling $282.0 billion (table 4.5). The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with NAFTA 

partners decreased to $123.5 billion in 2009 from $197.2 billion in the previous year—a 

decrease of 37.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 3.7 percent in 2008. 

The following sections describe the major activities of the NAFTA Free Trade 

Commission (FTC) and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), and 

dispute-settlement activities under NAFTA chapters 11 and 19 during 2009. With respect 

to the Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC), no new submissions on labor matters 

were filed in 2009. 

Free Trade Commission

NAFTA’s central oversight body is the FTC. It is chaired jointly by trade representatives 

or their designees from the three member countries.15 The FTC is responsible for 

overseeing implementation and elaboration of NAFTA, as well as for its disputesettlement provisions. 

 12 As part of this effort, the USTR requested an investigation by the U.S. International Trade 

Commission on December 15, 2009. See USITC, “USITC to Investigate the Probable Economic Effect of 

Duty-Free Imports of a U.S.-Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement,” January 11, 2010. 13 U.S. bilateral trade relations with Canada and Mexico are described in chap. 5 of this report. 14 The section on Mexico of chap. 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 

presented in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, 5–16. 15 The representatives are the U.S. Trade Representative, Canadian Minister for International Trade, and 

Mexican Secretary of Economy. 
4-8 

TABLE 4.5 U.S. merchandise trade with NAFTA partners, 2007–09, billions of dollars 

Year NAFTA partner 

U.S. 

Exports 

U.S. 

Imports Trade balance 

Two-way trade 

(exports plus imports)

2009 Canada 171.7 224.6 –52.9 396.3 

 Mexico 105.7 176.3 –70.6 282.0 

 Canada and Mexico 277.4 400.9 –123.5 678.3 

2008 Canada 222.4 334.8 –112.4 557.3 

 Mexico 131.5 216.3 –84.8 347.8 

 Canada and Mexico 353.9 551.2 –197.2 905.1 

2007 Canada 213.1 312.5 –99.4 525.6 

 Mexico 119.4 210.2 –90.8 329.5 

 Canada and Mexico 332.5 522.7 –190.2 855.2 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

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

At its most recent annual meeting, in October 2009, in Dallas, Texas, the FTC agreed to 

build upon the work of the August 2009 North American Leaders Summit, where leaders 

committed to “reinvigorate our trading relationship and to ensure that the benefits of our 

economic relationship are widely shared and sustainable.”16 The FTC asked officials of 

NAFTA countries to develop a work plan for revitalizing NAFTA that would incorporate 

three principles: competitiveness, strengthening institutions, and communications and 

transparency. The FTC also asked officials to cooperate in other areas reducing 

unnecessary regulatory differences so that goods, services, and capital can flow freely 

through modern and efficient borders.17 

At the meeting, the FTC also agreed to strengthen its relationship with both the CEC and 

CLC. To accomplish this, the FTC established an ad hoc working group composed of 

senior trade officials to explore areas of potential collaboration between the FTC and the 

CEC and to further trilateral discussion about North American trade and the protection of 

the environment. The FTC also designated senior trade officials to enhance collaboration 

between the FTC and CLC and further trilateral cooperation on trade and labor issues.18

In 2009, the United States, Canada, and Mexico implemented two sets of changes to the 

NAFTA rules of origin. The first set liberalized the NAFTA rules of origin via changes 

that cover approximately $100 billion in annual trilateral trade. The second set modified 

the NAFTA rules of origin to reflect changes in tariff nomenclature agreed to under the 

International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity and Coding System.19 At its 

October meeting, the FTC asked the Working Group on Rules of Origin to continue its 

work to liberalize the NAFTA rules of origin and to examine the rules of origin for 

 16 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 131. 17 USTR, “Joint Statement of the 2009 NAFTA Commission Meeting,” October 21, 2009; USTR, 2010 

Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 131. 18 USTR, “Joint Statement of the 2009 NAFTA Commission Meeting,” October 21, 2009; USTR, 2010 

Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 131. 19 Presidential Proclamation No. 8405, 74 Fed. Reg. 45529 (September 2, 2009); USTR, 2010 Trade 

Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 131. For further information on the modifications to 

the NAFTA rules of origin, see USITC, Modifications of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States, 2009. 
4-9 

environmental goods to determine whether liberalizing such rules would facilitate 

additional trade.20

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;21 (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, Canada, and 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.22

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.23 At the end of 2009, 12 complaint files remained active under article 14, 

4 of which were submitted in 2009 (table 4.6). During 2009, there were 12 active files 

that were based on citizen submissions under article 15; 1 involved the United States, 3 

involved Canada, and 8 involved Mexico (table 4.7). In 2009, the CEC did not publicly 

release any final factual records. 

At the June, 24, 2009, annual ministerial session in Denver, Colorado, the CEC Council 

committed to renewing, revitalizing, and refocusing the CEC to better serve the 

environment and citizens of the three countries.24 The CEC asked its officials to return in 

mid-July 2009 with a proposal to examine the governance of the CEC with a view to 

enhance its accountability, make the Secretariat’s activities more transparent, ensure 

alignment with Council priorities, and set clear performance goals.25 Also, the Council 

agreed on a new policy direction for the CEC to ensure it is focused on the key 

environmental priorities of North America, in the context of free trade and more 

integrated economies, and is positioned to deliver clear results. This new direction for the 

CEC will focus on three priorities during the period 2010–15: healthy communities and 

ecosystems; climate change and a low-carbon economy; and greening the economy in 

North America.26

 20 USTR, “Joint Statement of the 2009 NAFTA Commission Meeting,” October 21, 2009; USTR, 2010 

Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 131. 21 The CEC Council consists of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Canadian 

Environment Minister, and Mexican Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources. 22 CEC, “CEC Secretariat Council,” n.d. (accessed January 18, 2010). 

23 CEC, “A Guide to articles 14 and 15,” January 12, 2000. 

24 Sixteenth regular session of the CEC Council; CEC, “Ministerial Statement,” June 24, 2009. 25 Sixteenth regular session of the CEC Council; CEC, “Ministerial Statement,” June 24, 2009. 26 Sixteenth regular session of the CEC Council; CEC, “Ministerial Statement,” June 24, 2009; and 

USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 155. 
4-10 

TABLE 4.6 Active files through 2009 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 posted a request for information relevant to 

the factual record on its Web site on September 1, 2006. 

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 Secretariat informed the Council on September 10, 

2007, that the Secretariat considers that the 

submission warrants development of a factual record. 

La Ciudadela 

Project 

SEM-08-001 Feb. 22, 2008 Mexico The Secretariat received a response on March 10, 2008, 

from the concerned government party and began 

considering whether to recommend development of a 

factual record. 

Transgenic 

Maize in 

Chilhuahua 

SEM-09-001 Jan. 28, 2009 Mexico The Secretariat received a revised submission on February 

5, 2010, and began to analyze it. 

Wetlands in 

Manzanillo 

SEM-09-002 Feb. 4, 2009 Mexico The Secretariat received a revised submission on November 

2, 2009, and began to analyze it. 

Los 

Remedios 

National 

Park II 

SEM-09-003 July 16, 2009 Mexico The Secretariat began reviewing the submission under 

article 14 (1). 

Skeena 

River 

Fishery 

SEM-09-005 Oct. 15, 2009 Canada The Secretariat acknowledged receipt of a submission on 

October 15, 2009, and began a preliminary analysis of it 

under the guidelines. 

Source: CEC, “Active Files.” 

 a Refers to the country against which an allegation was filed. 
4-11 

TABLE 4.7 Citizen submissions on enforcement under article 15 of the North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation: Submissions active during 2009 

Name Case First filed Countrya

 Statusb

Lake Chapala II SEM-03-003 May 23, 2003 Mexico Open 

Coal-fired Power Plants SEM-04-005 Sept. 20, 2004 United States Open 

Quebec Automobiles SEM-04-007 Nov. 3, 2004 Canada Open 

Environmental Pollution in 

Hermosillo II SEM-05-003 Aug. 30, 2005 Mexico Open 

Ex Hacienda El Hospital II SEM-06-003 July 17, 2006 Mexico Open 

Ex Hacienda El Hospital III SEM-06-004 Sept. 22, 2006 Mexico Open 

Species at Risk SEM-06-005 Oct. 10, 2006 Canada Open 

La Ciudadela Project SEM-08-001 Feb. 22, 2008 Mexico Open 

Transgenic Maize in Chihuahua SEM-09-001 Jan. 28, 2009 Mexico Open 

Wetlands in Manzanillo SEM-09-002 Feb. 4, 2009 Mexico Open 

Los Remedios National Park II SEM-09-003 July 16, 2009 Mexico Open 

Skeena River Fishery SEM-09-005 Oct. 15. 2009 Canada Open 

Source: CEC, “Current Status.” 

 a Refers to the country against which an allegation was filed. 

 b Status as of December 31, 2009. 

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 2009, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) 

and the North American Development Bank (NADB), both organizations created 

pursuant to a NAFTA side agreement, reported working with more than 153 communities 

throughout the U.S.-Mexico border region to address their environmental infrastructure 

needs. As of December 31, 2009, the BECC had certified 167 environmental 

infrastructure projects, which will cost an estimated $3.7 billion to build. To date, the 

NADB has contracted approximately $1.1 billion in loans and grants to support 132 

certified projects. Of those funds, a total of $934.2 million has already been disbursed.27

Dispute Settlement 

The dispute-settlement provisions of NAFTA chapters 11 and 19 cover a variety of 

areas.28 Developments during 2009 are described below with respect to 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 dispute-settlement cases to which the United States was a party 

in 2009. 

 27 BECC and NADB Quarterly Status Report, December 31, 2009, 9. 28 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” January 18, 2010. 
4-12 

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.29 A key feature of the chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability 

in domestic courts of final awards made by arbitration tribunals.30

In 2009, there was one active chapter 11 case filed against the United States by Canadian 

investors.31 In the same year, there were two active chapter 11 cases filed by U.S. 

investors against Canada,32 and one active chapter 11 case filed by U.S. investors against 

Mexico.33

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.34

At the end of 2009, the NAFTA Secretariat listed nine binational panels active under 

chapter 19 (table 4.8). Of the two binational panels formed in 2009 under chapter 19, one 

challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations on products from Canada and another 

challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations on products from Mexico.35 

 29 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). 30 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” January 18, 2010. 31 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed Against the United States;” Foreign 

Affairs and International Trade Canada, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed Against the Government of the 

United States of America.” 32 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed Against Canada;” Foreign Affairs and 

International Trade Canada, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada.” 33 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed Against the United Mexican States;” 

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “NAFTA—Chapter 11: Cases Filed Against the 

Government of the United Mexican States.” 34 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” January 18, 2010. 35 NAFTA Secretariat, “NAFTA—Chapter 19 Active Cases,” http://www.nafta-secalena.org/en/StatusReportResults.aspx.
4-13 

TABLE 4.8 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of the end of 2009 

Countrya Case number National agencies' final determinationb Case titlec

Mexico 

 MEX-USA-2006-1904-02 SE Final Dumping Determination Fresh Apples (AD) 

 

United States 

 USA-CDA-2008-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod (AD) 

 USA-CDA-2009-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod (AD) 

 USA-MEX-2007-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils (AD) 

 USA-MEX-2007-1904-03 USITC Antidumping Duty Review Welded Pipe (AD) 

 USA-MEX-2008-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils (AD) 

 USA-MEX-2008-1904-03 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube (AD) 

 USA-MEX-2008-1904-04 USITC Final Injury Determination Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from 

China, Korea, and 

Mexico (IN) 

 

 USA-MEX-2009-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping Administrative Review Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip (AD) 

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Panel Proceedings.” 

a

 Refers to the country that filed the case. 

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.” c The abbreviations in the title of the reports represent the following: AD, Antidumping Duty, and IN, Injury. 

5-1 

CHAPTER 5 

U.S. Relations with Major Trading Partners

This chapter reviews U.S. bilateral trade relations with nine selected trading partners 

during 2009: the European Union, Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Taiwan, Brazil, and India (ordered by value of merchandise trade). The decline 

in global trade because of the economic downturn of 2008–09 was reflected in U.S. 

bilateral trade trends with each of these trading partners in 2009. 

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. Reflecting the economic downturn, in 2009 U.S. 

merchandise trade with the EU decreased 21.9 percent to $480.5 billion, which accounted 

for 19.3 percent of total U.S. trade. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU 

declined for the fourth year in a row, falling $36.8 billion to $75.7 billion in 2009 (figure 

5.1). The United States also registered a trade surplus in services with the EU of $52.3 

billion, down $4.1 billion from 2008 (figure 5.2); the EU accounted for 36.4 percent of 

U.S. trade in services in 2009.2

U.S. merchandise exports to the EU declined 19.4 percent to $202.4 billion in 2009. 

Leading U.S. exports included aircraft and parts, certain medicaments, blood fractions 

(e.g., antiserum), petroleum products, nonmonetary gold, medical instruments, coal, and 

passenger motor vehicles. Among top exports, there were notable declines in exports of 

motor vehicles, which fell 50 percent, as well as petroleum products and coal. 

FIGURE 5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2005–09a

 

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

 1

 The 27 members of the EU in 2009 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 2009. 
5-2 

U.S. merchandise imports from the EU declined 23.5 percent in 2009 to $278.1 billion. 

Because of the importance of intra-industry trade in the bilateral relationship, the 

composition of U.S. imports from the EU was similar to the composition of U.S. exports. 

Leading U.S. imports were certain medicaments, petroleum products, passenger motor 

vehicles, nucleic acids and their salts, heterocyclic compounds, and aircraft and parts. 

Imports of all major product categories decreased in 2009, with the most notable declines 

in imports of motor vehicles and petroleum products. U.S.-EU merchandise trade data are 

shown in appendix tables A.21 through A.23. 

The Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), established in 2007, addressed a number of 

bilateral trade issues in 2009, which are described below. There were also developments 

in several WTO dispute-settlement cases involving the United States and the EU in 2009 

(see chapter 3 and appendix table A.19). The United States requested dispute-settlement 

consultations with the EU regarding a ban on imports of U.S. poultry meat treated with 

pathogen reduction substances, ending an attempt to address this issue in the TEC forum. 

Panel reports were delayed in several disputes, including disputes involving alleged U.S. 

and EU subsidies for large civil aircraft and a dispute regarding EU tariff treatment of 

certain information technology products.3

 One long-running WTO dispute regarding the 

EU banana import regime was ended, and there were further developments in another 

dispute involving EU imports of U.S. beef (beef hormones dispute). Developments in 

both of these disputes are summarized below. 

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 2009 summit, the leaders of the United 

States and the EU agreed to “intensify [their] work under the Framework for Advancing 

Transatlantic Economic Integration and the Transatlantic Economic Council, including 

through the formation of a high-level innovation dialogue, strengthened regulatory 

cooperation in key sectors leading to reduced barriers to trade, investment and economic 

activity.”4

 In anticipation of the U.S.-EU Summit, the TEC met in October to improve 

regulatory cooperation and address progress made on certain priority issues (“lighthouse 

projects”) aimed at advancing transatlantic economic integration, including intellectual 

property rights (IPR), secure trade, financial markets, and investment. A fifth lighthouse 

project, innovation and technology, was added in 2009. These priority areas were 

discussed formally and informally during the year through working groups and 

ministerial-level dialogues. 

Lighthouse Projects 

The U.S.-EU IPR Working Group met in September 2009, focusing on common goals in 

key third-country markets such as China, Russia, and India. The Working Group 

reaffirmed its commitment to the completion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 

Agreement, including the engagement of third-country trading partners.5

 The U.S. 

 3

 For more information on major developments during 2009, see the WTO dispute-settlement section of 

chap. 3. 4

 Council of the European Union, “2009 EU-US Summit Declaration,” November 3, 2009, 3. 5

 For more information on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, see chap. 3. 
5-3 

Department of Commerce and the European Commission presented online IPR resources 

that had been developed for SMEs and a new set of guidelines to aid U.S. and EU 

customs officials in differentiating illicit and legitimate goods.6

 With regard to trade and 

transport security, a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) on U.S. and EU secure-trade 

initiatives was not finalized in 2009, but negotiations continued with the purpose of 

completing discussions in time for the next U.S. Joint Customs Cooperation Committee 

meeting in 2010.7

 The Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue (FMRD) met twice in 

2009, discussing U.S. and EU financial reform efforts within the context of the global 

financial system and G20 commitments.8

 At the TEC meeting in October, both sides 

noted the importance of pursuing “compatible approaches and avoiding financial 

mercantilism” while developing new financial regulations.9

 The Investment Dialogue 

also continued to discuss bilateral and global investment issues in 2009, remaining 

committed to “preserving and promoting open investment policies.”10

As part of a new emphasis on cooperation in innovation and emerging policy areas, the 

TEC agreed to establish a new U.S.-EU Innovation Dialogue designed to promote 

collaboration in innovative technological development and entrepreneurship. Potential 

topics of discussion might include policies relating to health information technology, 

information and communication technology, and clean energy technology. The TEC 

agreed to complete an assessment of priority projects and create a work program for this 

dialogue before meeting again in 2010.11

Regulatory Cooperation 

The U.S.-EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum (HLRCF), established at the 

2005 U.S.-EU Summit, met in July and October 2009. The forum reported progress to the 

TEC on a number of issues related to regulatory cooperation, including import safety in 

key product areas, impact and risk assessment methodologies in the development of 

regulations, and better incorporation of international standards in domestic regulations. 

At the October meeting, the TEC asked the HLRCF to assess “respective experiences 

with regulatory cooperation approaches, including mutual recognition agreements, and 

consider how and in what sectors each of these new and existing tools could be used 

more effectively to facilitate transatlantic trade.”12 The HLRCF noted in July 2009 that 

“past experience of using mutual recognition to reduce barriers to trade has been 

disappointing.”13 The TEC also identified nanotechnology, energy efficiency, and 

labeling as areas that require “immediate progress.” According to a U.S. TEC official, a 

major purpose of the TEC’s future work will be to “try and go upstream, anticipate future 

areas of regulation and where we can find common approaches.” By focusing on 

developing harmonized regulations in new sectors rather than changing established 

 6

 Transatlantic Economic Council, “Review of Progress under the Framework for Advancing 

Transatlantic Economic Integration,” October 27, 2009, 4–5. 7

 Transatlantic Economic Council, “Review of Progress,” October 27, 2009, 5. 8

 U.S.-EU Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue, Joint Report on U.S –EU Financial Markets 

Regulatory Dialogue, October 27, 2009. 9

 Transatlantic Economic Council, “TEC Statement: Message to the EU-US Summit,” October 27, 2009, 

2. 10 Transatlantic Economic Council, “Review of Progress,” October 27, 2009, 7. 11 Transatlantic Economic Council, “TEC Statement,” October 27, 2009, 2; Transatlantic Economic 

Council, “Review of Progress,” October 27, 2009, 6. 12 Transatlantic Economic Council, “TEC Statement,” October 27, 2009, 2. 13 U.S.-EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum, “Report on the Sixth Meeting of the EC-U.S. 

HLRCF,” July 24, 2009, 7. 
5-4 

policies, both sides said that they hope to make the TEC a more effective forum for 

regulatory cooperation.14

In October 2009, the forum updated the TEC on import product safety cooperation in key 

sectors, including food products, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics, chemicals, 

electrical equipment, automobiles, toys, and Internet services. Import safety cooperation 

was driven by information exchanges between ministries and regulatory organizations in 

2009. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its European 

counterparts met several times during the year on the margins of OECD meetings to 

discuss harmonization and transparency of chemicals management policies, such as the 

new EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 

program.15

The HLRCF reported in 2009 that recommendations from a joint report to the May 2008 

TEC meeting had been the basis for collaboration between U.S. and EU regulatory 

agencies to improve impact assessment policies.16 In the United States, regulatory 

agencies are directed to identify pending regulations that have international impacts.17

The EU Commission Impact Assessment Board published a set of revised guidelines that 

ensures that trade and investment impacts are considered in new regulations.18 In order to 

move forward on risk assessment collaboration, representatives from the United States 

and EU as well as Canada agreed in 2009 to develop three white papers focused on 

exposure assessment, emerging risks, and technologies and methodologies used to 

characterize uncertainty.19 With respect to international standards, the European 

Commission and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology presented 

white papers outlining U.S. and EU approaches to the use of voluntary and international 

standards in regulations.20

Bananas

In December 2009, the United States and the EU signed the U.S.-EU Agreement on 

Bananas, ending a longstanding dispute over the EU import regime for bananas. The 

U.S.-EU agreement was signed in conjunction with the Geneva Agreement on Trade in 

Bananas (GATB), involving the EU and 11 Latin American countries. At issue in the 

dispute was a European banana import regime instituted in 1993 that granted preferential 

market access to domestic suppliers and producing countries that were former colonies in 

Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (“ACP countries”). The EU banana regime placed 

tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) with high in-quota duties on non-ACP countries, which are 

primarily Latin American countries. The EU licensing system also limited access for U.S. 

 14 Transatlantic Economic Council, “TEC Statement,” October 27, 2009, 2; USDOS, “Transatlantic 

Economic Council,” Foreign Press Center Briefing, October 27, 2009. 15 Transatlantic Economic Council, “Review of Progress,” October 27, 2009, 2–4; U.S. Department of 

State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Trans Atlantic Economic Framework, Annex I, B.3(e): 

Chemicals and Nanomaterials.” 2009. 16 The report finds that, as a matter of practice, U.S. agencies consider trade and other international 

impacts as part of the regulatory review process. For more information on U.S. and EU impact assessment, 

see U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Secretariat General of the European Commission, Review of 

the Application of EU and U.S. Regulatory Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2008. 17 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Memorandum for Regulatory Policy,” July 7, 2008, 2–3. 18 European Commission, Impact Assessment Guidelines, January 15, 2009. 19 USDOS, “Trans Atlantic Economic Framework, Annex I, A: Horizontal Cooperation,” 2009. 20 European Commission, The Use of Voluntary Standards in Support of EU Legislation, 2009; U.S. 

National Institute of Science and Technology, Report on the Use of Voluntary Standards in Support of 

Regulation in the United States, 2009. 
5-5 

banana-producing companies, such as Chiquita Brands International and Dole Foods, 

which historically have distributed the majority of bananas exported from Latin 

America.21 The U.S.-EU agreement and the GATB were designed to settle all WTO 

disputes related to the EU banana import regime, including the dispute EC—Regime for 

the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, first requested by the United States 

along with Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico in February 1996. The EU agreed 

to maintain an MFN tariff-only import regime for bananas, therefore removing TRQs or 

licensing regimes that differentiate between countries or exporting companies. The EU 

also agreed to reduce the bound tariffs on bananas on an annual basis from 148 

euro/metric ton in 2010 to 114 euro/metric ton in 2017.22 This replaces the most recent 

banana import regime instituted in 2006, which consisted of a TRQ on non-ACP bananas 

subject to a 176 euro/metric ton in-quota tariff and an autonomous ACP-only TRQ 

subject to a zero in-quota tariff.23

Beef 

In May 2009, the United States and the EU signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) regarding the importation of U.S. beef. The EU has banned beef from cattle 

treated with growth-promoting hormones since 1989, effectively excluding most U.S. 

beef. In 1996, the United States requested a formal WTO dispute-settlement panel 

challenging the EU ban, which ruled that the EU ban was inconsistent with the WTO SPS 

Agreement because it was not based on a scientific risk assessment.24 Since 1999, the 

United States has applied additional retaliatory duties on a variety of EU products 

pending EU compliance with the WTO’s ruling.25 In January 2009, the United States 

announced that these additional duties would be collected on a modified list of EU 

products.26 This modification was delayed as MOU negotiations continued through early 

2009.27

The MOU, signed on May 13, 2009, provides opportunities for the United States and the 

EU to enter into established phases of increased market access. Initiation of each new 

phase is optional and therefore contingent upon continued successful negotiations. As 

each new phase enters into force, the United States will reduce the additional retaliatory 

duties authorized by the 1999 WTO ruling in exchange for increased access to the EU for 

exports of “high quality” beef, or beef determined to be from cattle untreated by 

hormones.28 Phase 1 of the agreement was initiated on August 3, 2009, and is scheduled 

to last for three years. This phase requires the EU to establish an autonomous TRQ of 

 21 For more background on the banana dispute, see USTR, “European Union,” 2001, 104–105; USITC, 

The Year in Trade, 2001, 4-2 to 4-6. 22 “Bananas” refers to fresh bananas, excluding plantains, classified under HS tariff line 0803.00.19. For 

more information on the U.S.-EU agreement and the GATB, see United States-EU Agreement on Bananas, 

http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1566; Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas, 

http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/wt/l/784.doc. 23 USTR, “European Union,” 2009, 188. 

24 For more information on the WTO dispute settlement proceedings, refer to chap. 2 (Section 301) and 

chap. 3. 25 USTR, “European Union,” 2009, 186–7. 

26 USTR, “USTR Announces Revised Trade Action in Beef Hormones Dispute,” January 15, 2009. 27 USTR, “USTR Announces Delay of Trade Action in Beef Hormones Dispute,” March 12, 2009. 28 The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture authenticates 

high-quality beef exports. For more information on the definition of high-quality beef and the terms of EU 

market access, see USDA, FAS Web site. “High Quality Beef Quota,” 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/posthome/useu/hqb.html (accessed March 11, 2010); USTR, “Memorandum of 

Understanding,” May 13, 2009. 
5-6 

20,000 metric tons of high-quality fresh, chilled, or frozen beef from U.S. exporters, with 

an in-quota tariff rate of zero percent. In exchange, the United States agreed to suspend 

the planned modification of its additional retaliatory duties. The MOU provides for an 

opportunity to enter into a year-long “phase 2” at the end of phase 1, beginning in August 

2012. Phase 2 would require that the United States suspend all additional retaliatory 

duties in exchange for an increase in the TRQ to 45,000 metric tons of high-quality beef. 

A “phase 3,” to be initiated in August 2013, would require the EU to maintain the 

increased quota in exchange for a permanent cessation of U.S. retaliatory duties.29

Canada

In 2009, Canada was the number one single-country U.S. merchandise trading partner, 

with two-way merchandise trade (exports plus imports) worth 16 percent of total U.S. 

trade. Because of the global economic downturn, however, U.S. merchandise trade with 

Canada declined by 30 percent to $396.3 billion in 2009. During this period, the U.S. 

trade deficit with Canada improved markedly, going from $112.4 billion in 2008 to $52.9 

billion in 2009 (figure 5.3). However, the U.S. services trade surplus with Canada also 

declined, though only slightly: it fell 2.3 percent ($487.0 million) to $20.9 billion in 

2009. U.S. exports of services to Canada fell 8.5 percent to $41.9 billion, while imports 

of services from Canada decreased 13.9 percent to $21.0 billion (figure 5.4). Canada was 

the second largest market for U.S. services and the fourth largest supplier of services in 

2009. 

U.S. merchandise exports to Canada declined 22.8 percent, from $222.4 billion in 2008 to 

$171.7 billion in 2009. Leading U.S. exports to Canada were aircraft and parts, motor 

vehicles and parts, and energy products (e.g., oil and oil products, natural gas). Almost all 

of the leading exports to Canada declined in 2009. 

U.S. merchandise imports from Canada decreased more sharply: they fell 32.9 percent, 

from $334.8 billion in 2008 to $224.6 billion in 2009. Leading U.S. imports were heavily 

represented by energy products (e.g., oil and oil products, natural gas, electricity) and 

motor vehicles and parts. Other leading imports were certain medicaments, aluminum, 

aircraft, paper, and softwood lumber. U.S.-Canada merchandise trade data can be found 

in appendix tables A.24 through A.26. 

U.S.-Canadian trade relations are governed in large part by the North American Free 

Trade Agreement, which entered into force on January 1, 1994, replacing the 1989 

bilateral U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.30 Many of the developments in U.S.-

Canada trade relations during 2009 described below relate to agricultural goods and 

issues in the context of the extensive integration of the two economies and their markets. 

 29 USTR, “Memorandum of Understanding,” May 13, 2009. 30 For more information on NAFTA, see chap. 4. 
5-7 

FIGURE 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2005–09 a 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

Agriculture 

Consultative Committee on Agriculture 

The Canada-United States Consultative Committee on Agriculture and the Province/State 

Advisory Group met in May and December 2009, to continue their discussions on 

technical and trade policy issues concerning trade in vegetables, fruit, seeds, plants, 

livestock, and biotechnology.31 In 2009, these discussions touched on topics such as the 

2007 Canada-U.S. Potato Arrangement, cheese standards and other dairy product issues, 

meat and livestock veterinary issues involving bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE 

or “mad cow”) disease and the H1N1 virus, food safety policy and animal welfare 

standards, and biotechnology issues such as nanotechnology, biotech food labeling, 

animal cloning, and genetic modification.32 These groups were established under the 

1998 U.S.-Canada Record of Understanding on Agricultural Matters to strengthen 

bilateral trade relations and facilitate discussion and cooperation on agricultural matters.33 

Organic Products Agreement 

On June 17, 2009, Canada and the United States signed an organic products agreement 

through an exchange of letters that recognizes each country’s organic certification 

standards as equivalent. The exchange of letters sets out a “determination of equivalence” 

that allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic seal—regulated under 

USDA’s National Organic Program—and the Canada Organic Biologique logo—

regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—to indicate organic products in one 

another’s markets without further certification.34 

 31 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 136–7. 32 Canada-United States Consultative Committee on Agriculture, Minutes of meeting, May 27, 2009. 33 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 136–7. 34 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 136–7; Trade Reports 

International Group, “US, Canada Sign ‘Organic’ Agreement,” Washington Trade Daily, June 18, 2009. 
5-8 

Country-of-Origin Labeling 

On March 16, 2009, the final rule on country-of-origin labeling (COOL) went into effect 

in the United States, covering a wide variety of unprocessed foods. The USDA first 

issued voluntary COOL guidelines for certain commodities in 2002, as required under the 

2002 U.S. farm bill and, later, the 2008 U.S. farm bill. The COOL law requires retailers 

to inform customers about the source of certain foods. COOL is mandatory for beef, 

pork, lamb, chicken, goat meat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, perishable 

agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts.35

Since 2002, the Government of Canada has registered its concerns with the United States 

about COOL during U.S. legislative comment periods, in meetings with U.S. 

administration officials, and, in 2008–09, through dispute-settlement consultations at the 

WTO. In particular, the Canadian government is concerned that the labeling requirements 

are likely to hinder trade in Canadian products by imposing additional costs at all 

processing stages.36 In 2009, both Canada and Mexico requested WTO dispute-settlement 

panels to consider these mandatory U.S. COOL provisions, and a single WTO dispute 

panel was established on November 19, 2009.37 

Softwood Lumber 

In 1996, the United States and Canada signed the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber 

Agreement (SLA), which expired in March 2001. In 2006, the United States and Canada 

signed a second U.S.-Canada SLA, which entered into force on October 12, 2006, and is 

expected to continue for seven years, with the possibility of extension for another two 

years.38

Arbitration on export measures 

On August 13, 2007, the United States requested international arbitration by the London 

Court of International Arbitration (now the LCIA) under terms of the 2006 SLA to 

consider Canada’s failure to apply certain export measures—export charges and export 

volume controls—on softwood lumber imported into the United States during the first 

half of 2007.39 On March 3, 2008, the LCIA issued its Award on Liability, deciding that 

Canada had breached the agreement.40

On February 26, 2009, the LCIA issued its Award on Remedies, identifying 30 days as a 

reasonable period of time for Canada to “cure the breach” under the terms of the 

 35 74 Fed. Reg. 2658 (January 15, 2009); USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), “Country of 

Origin Labeling,” March 5, 2010. 36 Government of Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Government of Canada to 

Begin Formal WTO Consultations on U.S. Country-of-Origin Labelling,” December 1, 2008. 37 For more information on this WTO dispute, see the chap. 3 section on WTO dispute-settlement panels 

and appendix table A.19. 38 USTR, “Tribunal Orders Canada to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement,” February 26, 

2009. 39 LCIA, “The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent—Award on Liability,” 

March 3, 2008, 11–13; USTR, “Tribunal Orders Canada to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber 

Agreement,” February 26, 2009. 40 LCIA, “The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent—Award on Liability,” 

March 3, 2008, 97. 
5-9 

agreement.41 In its 2009 award, the LCIA required Canada to collect an additional 10 

percent ad valorem export charge on softwood lumber shipments from the Canadian 

provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan until a total remedy amount 

of C$68.26 million (approximately US$54.80 million at the time of the award, according 

to the USTR) was collected.42

On March 27, 2009, Canada tendered a cash payment of approximately US$36.66 million 

(US$34.0 million plus simple interest at 4 percent) to the United States contingent on 

final settlement of the case.43 After reviewing Canada’s offer, the United States notified 

Canada on April 2, 2009, that it would not accept Canada’s compensation offer.44 As a 

consequence, Canada submitted the same day a request for LCIA arbitration to determine 

or clarify whether a lump sum government-to-government payment could qualify as a 

cure for breaches of the agreement.45

On April 7, 2009, the United States announced it would begin imposing the 10 percent ad 

valorem customs duty on imports of softwood lumber from the Canadian provinces of 

Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan, as outlined by the LCIA tribunal in 

February 2009. The United States said that these duties would remain in place until 

US$54.80 million had been collected.46

On September 28, 2009, the LCIA tribunal denied Canada’s request that it be allowed to 

make a lump sum payment to the United States as a cure for breach of the agreement. The 

tribunal pointed out that such payments as compensatory adjustments for a breach would 

have no economic effect to reduce the volume of lumber exports from Canada, as is the 

purpose of the SLA.47 The Government of Canada announced the same day that it would 

move to comply with the tribunal’s decision.48

Arbitration on provincial subsidies 

On January 18, 2008, the United States requested LCIA arbitration to consider U.S. 

claims that certain provincial and federal assistance programs providing subsidies to the 

forest products industry—such as in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as well as 

 41 LCIA, “The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent—Award on Remedies,” 

February 23, 2009, 148–9. 42 LCIA, “The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent—Award on Remedies,” 

February 23, 2009, 148–9; USTR, “Tribunal Orders Canada to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber 

Agreement,” February 26, 2009. 43 LCIA, “Canada, Claimant, v. The United States of America, Respondent—Award,” September 28, 

2009, 11–2; USTR, “United States Imposes Tariffs on Softwood Lumber from Four Canadian Provinces due 

to Canada’s Failure to Comply with the Softwood Lumber Agreement,” April 7, 2009. 44 LCIA, “Canada, Claimant, v. The United States of America, Respondent—Award,” September 28, 

2009, 11–2; USTR, “U.S. Responds to Canadian Failure to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber 

Agreement,” April 3, 2009; USTR, “United States Imposes Tariffs on Softwood Lumber from Four Canadian 

Provinces due to Canada’s Failure to Comply with the Softwood Lumber Agreement,” April 7, 2009. 45 LCIA, “Canada, Claimant, v. The United States of America, Respondent—Award,” September 28, 

2009, 44–5. 46 USTR, “United States Imposes Tariffs on Softwood Lumber from Four Canadian Provinces due to 

Canada’s Failure to Comply with the Softwood Lumber Agreement,” April 7, 2009. For more information on 

the U.S. sect. 301 case concerning the SLA arbitration, see the chap. 2 section on U.S. laws against unfair 

trade practices. 47 LCIA, “Canada, Claimant, v. The United States of America, Respondent—Award,” September 28, 

2009, 73; USTR, “Tribunal Finds Canada Failed to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement,” 

September 28, 2009. 48 Government of Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “Statement from 

Minister Day on Softwood Lumber Tribunal Ruling,” September 28, 2009. 
5-10 

nationally—circumvent Canada’s commitments under the 2006 SLA.49 The case was still 

pending in early 2010.50

Government Procurement 

In late 2009, the United States and Canada held consultations concerning market access 

for government procurement contracts below the federal level. These consultations were 

initiated in response to the “Buy American” provisions enacted into U.S. law through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed February 17, 2009.51

Reciprocal market access to central government procurement contracts is provided to 

members of the plurilateral WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), but 

not in all cases to procurement contracts at sub-federal or municipal levels. Although 

both Canada and the United States are GPA signatories and thus provide reciprocal 

central government access to procurement contracts, neither provides access to the other 

at the sub-federal level under the GPA. However, as a result of these 2009 bilateral 

discussions, U.S. and Canadian government negotiators were able to reach a tentative 

agreement in early 2010 that helps expand U.S. and Canadian market access to U.S. state, 

Canadian provincial, and each other’s municipal procurement contracts on a provisional 

basis.52

Intellectual Property Rights 

Over the last 20 years, Canada has regularly appeared on USTR’s Special 301 watch list 

of countries that merit bilateral attention because of IPR problems.53 In 2009, for the first 

time, USTR elevated Canada to its priority watch list of countries with significant IPR 

problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation. Canada’s failure to 

accede to and implement the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet 

Treaties that it signed in 1997 has been a longstanding concern of USTR. USTR also 

continued to urge Canada to improve its IPR enforcement system within the country, to 

take action to curb infringing products transshipped to the United States through Canada, 

and to strengthen border enforcement measures so that Canadian customs officers have 

the authority to seize suspected infringing products without a court order.54 More 

 49 LCIA, “The United States of America, Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent—Request for Arbitration,” 

January 18, 2008. 50 USTR, 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2010; Inside U.S. 

Trade, “Order Signals U.S. Victory in Canada Lumber Case, Extent May Be Limited,” February 5, 2010. 51 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 136–7. 52 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 136–7; Trade Reports 

International Group, “US-Canada Sign Procurement Pact,” Washington Trade Daily, February 15, 2010. In 

February 2010, the United States and Canada signed a tentative agreement—subject to domestic legislative 

approval—that provides permanent U.S. access to Canadian provincial and territorial procurement contracts 

under the same terms as the WTO GPA; provides temporary U.S. access to Canadian provincial and 

municipal construction contracts through September 2011 that are not already covered by the WTO GPA; 

provides reciprocal access for Canadian companies in the 37 U.S. states already covered by the GPA; and 

provides Canada access to a limited number of programs under the ARRA that are otherwise reserved for 

domestic suppliers under the 2009 economic stimulus legislation. 53 International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), “2009 Special 301 Submission,” February 18, 

2009, appendix D. 54 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” April 30, 2009, 17. 
5-11 

positively, Canada is one of the countries negotiating a new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 

Agreement with the United States that is focused on improving IPR enforcement.55

China

In 2009, China was the United States’ second largest single-country trading partner based 

on two-way trade, accounting for 14.5 percent of U.S. trade with the world. Despite 

falling by $39.9 billion to $230.4 billion in 2009, the United States’ bilateral deficit with 

China was higher than the U.S. deficit with any other single-country trading partner. The 

narrowing of the 2009 U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China was mostly attributable 

to a fall in U.S. merchandise imports from China (figure 5.5). The United States also ran 

a services trade surplus with China in 2009, which amounted to $6.7 billion in 2009, 

compared to $6.1 billion the year before (figure 5.6). 

U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $65.1 billion in 2009, down 3.0 percent 

from 2008. China remained the third largest destination for U.S. exports in 2009, behind 

Canada and Mexico. U.S. exports to China remained relatively low in the first three 

quarters of 2009, but increased rapidly during the fourth quarter. Soybeans represented 

the largest U.S. export to China in 2009, followed by aircraft; ferrous, copper, and 

aluminum waste and scrap; and computer chips. Lower U.S. exports to China of 

computer chips, copper and aluminum waste and scrap, and cotton were largely offset by 

increased exports of soybeans, aircraft, and ferrous waste and scrap. 

In 2009, China remained the largest single-country source of U.S. imports and, for the 

first time, displaced the 27 members of the EU as the largest source of imports. U.S. 

imports from China amounted to $295.5 billion, a decrease of 12.4 percent from 2008. 

This decline was the result of falling U.S. imports in virtually all product categories, 

particularly consumer products. U.S. imports from China in the first quarter were at their 

lowest level since the first quarter of 2006; however, imports increased throughout the 

year. Leading U.S. imports from China in 2009 were computers and their parts, wireless 

telephones, toys, and video games and their parts. U.S.-China merchandise trade data are 

shown in appendix tables A.27 through A.29. 

FIGURE 5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2005–09 a 

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

 55 ACTA is discussed in chap. 3 of this report. 
5-12 

In 2009, U.S.-China bilateral trade relations focused on IPR enforcement, clean energy, 

Chinese restrictions on imports of U.S. pork, and cooperation on the financial sector and 

on the environment. Also during 2009, U.S. and Chinese officials held bilateral 

discussions to address global trade imbalances and China’s exchange-rate policy. These 

issues were the main focus of the July 2009 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue 

(S&ED) and the October 2009 Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT). 

There were also developments in a number of WTO dispute-settlement cases between the 

United States and China. Two disputes were resolved in 2009—on Chinese measures 

affecting imports of auto parts (DS340) and on Chinese grants, loans, and other 

incentives (DS387). A panel report was adopted in the dispute over Chinese IPR 

protection and enforcement (DS362), and an Appellate Body report was circulated in the 

dispute about Chinese trading rights and distribution services (DS363). Panels were 

established in two cases brought by China—on U.S. antidumping and countervailing 

duties (DS379) and U.S. measures affecting imports of Chinese poultry (DS392)—and in 

one dispute on Chinese measures related to the exportation of various raw materials 

(DS394). China also requested consultations with the United States regarding U.S. 

measures affecting imports of Chinese passenger vehicle and light truck tires (DS399). 

Developments during 2009 with respect to these cases 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 2009. According to the USTR, while China’s legal framework for IPR 

remains “largely satisfactory,” reforms are needed in “a few key areas,” including 

measures to implement the requirements of the WIPO Internet Treaties China acceded to 

in 2007 and additional criminal enforcement measures. Also according to USTR, 

deficiencies persist in the enforcement of IPR laws; trademark counterfeiting, copyright 

piracy, and other types of IPR infringement are pervasive. Improvements in coordination 

among different Chinese government agencies, increased training and resources, and 

measures to address local protectionism and corruption all are needed for effective IPR 

enforcement, according to the USTR.56 

Because of the above deficiencies, China has been on the Special 301 priority watch list 

of countries with significant IPR problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral 

consultation since 2005.57 In the 2009 Special 301 Report, the USTR particularly noted 

the need for strong action to address 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 report, China’s successful crackdown 

on online IPR infringement in connection with the Beijing Olympics demonstrated that 

positive results are possible.58 

The USTR also noted growing concerns from U.S. industry that Chinese government 

policies are being used to favor Chinese intellectual property over that of foreigners—for 

example, in government procurement programs that establish preferences for products 

with intellectual property developed, registered, and owned in China.59 However, in 

 56 USTR, “2009 USTR Report to Congress,” December 2009, 13, 81, 87. 57 China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010. USTR, “2010 Special 301 Report,” April 30, 

2010. 58 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” April 30, 2009, 13. 59 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” April 30, 2009, 14–15. 
5-13 

December 2009, USTR noted that China agreed to eliminate subsidies intended to 

support the export of “famous brands” of Chinese merchandise after the USTR 

challenged the measures at the WTO.60 

Clean Energy 

In July 2009, the United States and China announced the establishment of a new Clean 

Energy Research Center. The center aims to facilitate cooperation in research and 

development of clean energy between the United States and China with a focus on energy 

efficiency, clean coal, and clean vehicles.61

The JCCT serves as one of the primary forums for trade and economic dialogue between 

the two countries. One of the central focuses of the JCCT meetings in 2009 was clean 

energy cooperation.62 Four of the 11 agreements signed during the JCCT were clean 

energy-related, including the agreement to create the U.S.-China Energy Cooperation 

Program.63 This agreement creates a public-private partnership between 21 U.S. 

companies and several Chinese companies and the Chinese government to undertake 

clean energy projects in China.64 The Clean Energy Cooperation Program will focus 

primarily on the development of smart grids, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and 

other clean energy technologies.65 During separate meetings in November, the United 

States and China announced several other new initiatives related to clean energy, 

including the U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Action Plan and the U.S.-China Renewable 

Energy Partnership.66 These initiatives aim to improve energy efficiencies and to develop 

new renewable energy programs in both the United States and China. 

During the JCCT meetings in October, China agreed to eliminate the mandatory 70 

percent local-content requirement on components of wind-powered equipment, in 

particular wind-powered turbines.67 While U.S. exports of wind turbines to China are 

sporadic, China currently has the fastest-growing wind market in the world.68 Newly 

installed wind generation capacity in China accounted for 34.7 percent of new global 

wind generation in 2009.69 

Pork 

According to USTR, in 2009 China maintained restrictive pathogen and residue standards 

for raw meat, including pork and pork products, which prevented an anticipated increase 

 60 USTR, “United States Wins End,” December 18, 2009. 

61 USDOE, “US-China Energy Research Center Announced,” July 15, 2009. 

62 USDOC, “Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and USTR Ronald Kirk Convene 20th Session,” October 

21, 2009. 63 USDOC, “Fact Sheet: Eleven Agreements Signed at the 20th U.S.-China JCCT,” October 29, 2009. 64 USDOC, “U.S. Delegation Media Availability at the 20th U.S.-China Joint Commission on 

Commerce and Trade,” October 28, 2009. 65 USDOC, “Commerce Secretary Gary Locke Announces Support for U.S.-China Energy Cooperation 

Program,” October 28, 2009. 66 USDOE, “U.S.-China Clean Energy Announcements,” November 17, 2009. 67 U.S. Embassy in China, “U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Fact Sheet,” October 

29, 2009. 68 USITC, “Wind Turbines: Industry and Trade Summary,” June 2009, 46. 

69 Global Wind Energy Council, “Global Wind Power Boom Continues despite Economic Woes,” 

March 2, 2010. 
5-14 

in U.S. pork exports to China. China imposed a complete ban on U.S. pork, pork 

products, and live swine after the advent of the H1N1 influenza A virus in April 2009. 

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the World 

Health Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health, the H1N1 virus is 

not transmitted by food products.70 The ban allowed importation of cooked pork products 

transported in “disinfected” containers; however, talks on the specifics of the disinfection 

broke down, thereby preventing cooked U.S. pork products from entering the Chinese 

market as well. On April 30, 2009, Commerce Secretary Locke sent a letter to the 

Chinese Minister of Commerce Chen Deming urging China to remove the restrictions on 

the importation of pork.71 At the October 2009 meeting of the JCCT, China announced its 

intention of lifting the ban on U.S. pork, pork products, and live swine.72 

Global Trade Imbalances and China’s Exchange-Rate Regime 

Two important trade phenomena—the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China of 

$230.4 billion in 2009, and China’s policies limiting the yuan’s flexibility—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 year-end 2009, the yuan appreciated by 

approximately 17.1 percent in U.S. dollar terms.73 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 subsequently 

reverted to a managed exchange rate against the U.S. dollar until mid-2010. 

During the July 2009 Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), officials of the U.S. 

Treasury Department urged their Chinese counterparts to rebalance China’s economy by 

boosting domestic demand through consumption-led growth, to reform its financial 

system, and to allow the yuan to appreciate. Both the Department of State and the 

Treasury Department stated that China’s domestic demand could be stimulated through 

continued increases in personal incomes and the strengthening of its domestic social 

safety nets, which would address the underlying causes of the relatively high savings rate 

in China.74 

 70 USTR, “2009 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance.” 

71 USDA, “Letter to Chinese Minister of Commerce from Secretary Locke,” April 30, 2009. 72 USDOS, U.S. Embassy, Beijing, “Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke Meets with Chinese Leaders 

on Bilateral Trade Issues,” November 25, 2009. On March 17, 2010, the United States and China reached an 

agreement to reopen the Chinese market to U.S. pork and pork products, following discussions with the 

Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China 

(AQSIQ). USTR, “U.S. And China Agree On Reopening Chinese Pork Market To U.S.,” March 18, 2010. 

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service has published export documentation online to facilitate the 

resumption of U.S. pork exports to China, although China continues to ban exports from a number of specific 

establishments as listed on the USDA export notice. USDA, FSIS, “Export Requirements for People’s 

Republic of China,” April 15, 2010. On May 13, 2010, China gave official notice that it would accept 

shipments of U.S. pork produced on or after May 1, 2010, although USDA officials have been in contact with 

Chinese officials to adjust the date of product eligibility to the date of March 24, 2010, originally specified in 

the agreement. Gabbett, “China Sets Date for Accepting U.S. Pork Shipments,” May 17, 2010. 73 IMF, International Financial Statistics Database. 

74 U.S. Department of Treasury, “New Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China,” July 29, 2009. 
5-15 

Mexico

In 2009, Mexico was the United States’ third largest single-country trading partner, 

following Canada and China, and accounted for 11.3 percent of U.S. trade with the 

world.75 The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Mexico declined by $14.2 billion to 

$70.6 billion in 2009 (figure 5.7), mainly due to decreased U.S. merchandise imports 

from Mexico. These imports declined more in value in 2009 than corresponding U.S. 

exports to Mexico, despite an average dollar appreciation of approximately 10 percent 

against the Mexican peso in that year.76 The U.S. trade surplus in services with Mexico 

declined by 0.1 percent to $8.3 billion in 2009 (figure 5.8). U.S. services exports to 

Mexico were $21.7 billion and U.S. services imports from Mexico were $13.4 billion. 

U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled $105.7 billion in 2009, down 19.6 percent 

from 2008. In 2009, as in the previous year, machinery and transportation equipment 

continued to be the largest product group in bilateral trade, with automotive trade an 

important component in both imports and exports. Other leading U.S. exports to Mexico 

included petroleum products, corn, soybeans, computer parts, aircraft and aircraft parts, 

plastic articles, and parts for electrical apparatus. 

In 2009, U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico decreased by 18.5 percent to $176.3 

billion. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included petroleum and petroleum products, 

televisions, motor vehicles, cellular telephones, computers, and medical instruments. 

Particularly important in the trends for U.S. imports was the decline in U.S. imports of 

machinery and transport equipment and mineral fuels—together responsible for most of 

the decline in total U.S. imports from Mexico. U.S.-Mexico merchandise trade data are 

shown in appendix tables A.30 through A.32. 

FIGURE 5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2005–09 a 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

 75 Based on two-way trade, i.e., the sum of merchandise exports plus merchandise imports. 76 The slowdown in the economy of the United States, as well as the changes in the value of the dollar 

against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners in 2009, are discussed in chap. 1. 
5-16 

U.S.-Mexican trade relations are governed in large part by NAFTA, which provides dutyfree status for substantially all goods traded between the two countries that originate in 

the United States and Mexico.77 There were a number of trade disputes between the 

United States and Mexico that were the subject of WTO and NAFTA dispute-settlement 

proceedings in 2009. The procedural developments in each of these cases are listed in 

appendix tables A.19 and A.20, respectively. Recent developments in cross-border 

trucking provisions between Mexico and the United States are summarized below. 

Cross-Border Trucking Between the United States and Mexico 

The NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions permit Mexican trucks to obtain operating 

authority to provide cross-border truck services throughout the United States beginning in 

2000. The provision’s implementation, however, has been delayed because of safety 

concerns.78 On September 7, 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

initiated a one-year Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project aimed at 

demonstrating the ability of Mexico-based motor carriers to operate safely in the United 

States beyond the commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border.79 On August 6, 2008, 

after evaluating this one-year demonstration project,80 the USDOT extended it. 

Originally, the extension was to be for two years, until 2010.81 However, the USDOT 

terminated the project in January 2009, after Congress banned the use of DOT funds to 

operate or maintain the program.82 

In response, the government of Mexico, stating that the termination measure was 

inconsistent with U.S. obligations under NAFTA, suspended the preferential tariffs that 

the NAFTA affords to certain goods from the United States. On March 18, 2009, the 

Mexican government announced new tariffs on U.S. goods imported under 89 tariff lines, 

including Christmas trees (20 percent), fresh grapes (45 percent), and potatoes (20 

percent).83 Duties ranged from 10 percent to 45 percent ad valorem, with a simple 

average of 18 percent. On March 19, 2009, the new tariffs became effective.84 On April 

2, 2009, the National Chamber of Truck Cargo Transport (Cámara Nacional del 

Autotransporte de Carga, CANACAR), a trade association representing Mexican trucking 

companies, filed a Notice of Arbitration with the U.N. Commission on International 

 77 For more information on NAFTA, see chap. 4. 

78 Developments in cross-border truck services between the United States and Mexico from 1981 to 

2008 are reported in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, 5–16. 79 The safety of the participating carriers was tracked closely by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) and its state partners, a joint U.S.-Mexico monitoring group, and an evaluation 

panel independent of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Details of the Cross-Border Trucking 

Demonstration Project are discussed in 72 Fed. Reg. 23883 (May 1, 2007); 72 Fed. Reg. 31877 (June 8, 

2007); 72 Fed. Reg. 46263 (August 17, 2007); and USITC, The Year in Trade 2007, 5–11. 80 As mandated by Congress under the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and 

Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-28, sect. 6901, 121 Stat. 183–185 (May 25, 

2007). Details of the USDOT evaluation and assessment of the implementation of the demonstration program 

are reported in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, 5–16. 81 73 Fed. Reg. 45796 (August 6, 2008). 

82 74 Fed. Reg. 11628 (March 18, 2009); Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8. As of 

March 24, 2010, the amendment (sect. 136), which banned the funding of the pilot program, was not included 

in the draft of the 2010 USDOT Appropriations Bill, 111th U.S. Congress. 83 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, Mexico: Mexico Announces Tariff Modifications,” 2, March 18, 2009. 84 Secretaría de Gobernación, Diario Oficial de la Federación (Mexico’s Federal Register), March 18, 

2009. In 2009, the value of Mexico’s imports from the United States of these 89 products amounted to less 

than 2 percent of total U.S. exports to Mexico. 
5-17 

Trade Law and NAFTA.85 Mexico still grants the United States its rights to operate in 

Mexico U.S.-domiciled trucks, as originally granted in the two-year project extension. 

Japan

In 2009, Japan was the fourth largest single-country U.S. trading partner, accounting for 

5.8 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade, down from 6.2 percent in 2008. U.S. trade 

with Japan was $143.1 billion in 2009, down 28.7 percent from 2008. The United States 

recorded a merchandise trade deficit with Japan of $48.9 billion or 8.0 percent of the total 

U.S. merchandise trade deficit in 2009, down for the third year in a row in terms of both 

share and value (figure 5.9). The $28.7 billion decline in the bilateral deficit was 

primarily attributable to the global recession and the overall contraction in world trade in 

2009. Japan was both the third-largest market for U.S. exports of services and the thirdlargest source of services imports in 2009. U.S. services exports to Japan fell 3.6 percent 

to $39.7 billion, while imports of services from Japan decreased 12.6 percent to $21.4 

billion, fueling a $1.6 billion increase in the U.S. surplus to $18.3 billion in 2009 (figure 

5.10). 

U.S. merchandise exports to Japan declined by 23.4 percent to $47.1 billion in 2009, 

from $61.4 billion in 2008. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were aircraft and parts, corn, 

certain medicaments, soybeans, and wheat. While exports declined across the board, the 

largest declines in value were in corn, wheat, and parts of airplanes or helicopters. 

However, exports of certain medicaments, pork, medical instruments, uranium, and rice 

increased. 

FIGURE 5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2005–09 a 

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

 85 The filing alleges that the USDOT restricts Mexican carriers’ operations in the United States and 

Mexican investment in the U.S. carriers industry, which is in violation of NAFTA article 1102 (national 

treatment) and article 1103 (most-favored-nation treatment). CANACAR also alleges that the United States 

has failed to comply with a 2001 NAFTA Chapter 20 arbitral decision in the Matter of Cross-Border 

Trucking Services, in violation of NAFTA article 1105 (minimum standard of treatment under international 

law), CANACAR, Notice of Arbitration, April 2, 2009. 
5-18 

U.S. merchandise imports from Japan declined by 31.0 percent to $96.0 billion in 2009, 

the third straight year that imports declined. 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—led the declines 

in merchandise imports, although the declines took place across the board. However, 

imports of parts of airplanes or helicopters, certain medications, certain organic 

chemicals, and wind turbines increased. 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. The Partnership has several components, which include the Regulatory Reform 

and Competition Policy Initiative, the Trade Forum, and the Investment Initiative.86 In 

2009, discussions through the Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative 

continued to focus on regulatory reform in Japan, including economy-wide and sectorspecific reforms.87 The Trade Forum focused specifically on U.S. beef exports to Japan 

and bilateral trade in automobiles;88 all three efforts are discussed in greater detail below. 

In addition, the United States-Japan Investment Initiative addressed the continued 

facilitation of foreign direct investment between Japan and the United States.89 The two 

countries also signed several agreements, including one liberalizing air services for both 

countries,90 as well as an agreement to align security standards in international trade 

partnership programs.91

Regulatory Reform 

During 2009, bilateral dialogue on the deregulation of Japan’s economy continued under 

the Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative. Discussions with Japan 

focused on recommendations originally exchanged in October 2008. In 2009 the talks 

made some substantial progress as well as suffering some major setbacks. 

Japan implemented several cross-sectoral reforms in 2009. It agreed to continue to ensure 

timely translations of Japanese laws into English; it had translated 260 laws into English 

as of April 2009, and plans to translate a total of 440 through its Translation 

Development Program by the end of fiscal year 2010.92 The Japanese government also 

increased the number of public comment periods that are longer than 30 days in order to 

improve transparency. On June 3, 2009, Japan enacted a bill amending the Antimonopoly 

Act, which increased penalties against cartels. Furthermore, the Tokyo Stock Exchange 

proposed and implemented new rules to better protect shareholder interests, to improve 

the investment environment in Japan.93 

 86 USDOC, International Trade Administration (ITA), “Office of Japan, Market Opening Initiatives,” 

March 8, 2010. 87 USTR, “Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative,” fact sheet, July 6, 2009. 88 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 141. 89 USDOS, “United States-Japan Investment Initiative 2009 Report,” July 6, 2009. 90 USDOT, “U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces U.S.-Japan Agreement on Open Skies,” 

December 11, 2009. 91 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, “Japan, US Sign 

Arrangement to Align Security Standards for Cross-Border Business,” July 1, 2009. 92 The Japanese fiscal year 2010 covers the period April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011. 93 USTR, “Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative,” report and fact sheet, July 6, 2009. 
5-19 

The dialogue also made progress on several sector-specific reforms, including 

communications, information technology, medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and 

financial services. For example, the Japanese government enacted a framework for 

licensing 3.9G mobile services and identified new requirements for mobile multimedia 

broadcasting.94 Japan’s Copyright Law was amended and its protections for music and 

motion pictures were strengthened.95 A legal framework was introduced to create new 

opportunities for electronic funds transfer providers. A database of government 

information systems procurement was launched. Reimbursements were established for 

remote diagnostic imaging technologies used in telemedicine. The Japanese government 

also agreed to update the list issued in December 2008 of active ingredients for approved 

medicated cosmetics. Finally, Japan enacted the Payment Services Bill in June 2009, 

which allows non-banking entities to provide e-payment services.96 

However, in a setback to the Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative, the 

newly elected Japanese government revised the privatization process for the Japan Post 

Bank and Japan Post Insurance.97 The new law indefinitely delays the sale of government 

shares in these companies.98 The United States continues to encourage Japan to eliminate 

the preferential treatment given to Japan Post compared to private sector companies in 

insurance, banking, and express delivery sectors.99

Beef 

Japan continues 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 bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy, also known as “mad cow disease.”100 In 2009, several U.S. government 

officials met with their Japanese counterparts and continued to encourage greater access 

to Japan’s beef market and to base food regulations on commonly agreed scientific 

norms.101 However, as of December 2009, Japan’s age limit was still in place. 

Japan’s restrictions on imports of U.S. beef have had an adverse effect on U.S. beef 

exports. Prior to the ban on imports of U.S. beef in December 2003, Japan was the largest 

export market for U.S. beef. Total U.S. exports of beef amounted to $3.6 billion in 2003, 

of which $1.3 billion, or 37.1 percent, went to Japan. In 2009, total U.S. exports of beef 

amounted to $2.9 billion, and only $469.0 million, or 16.0 percent of that total, was 

shipped to Japan.102

 94 USTR, “Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative,” fact sheet, July 6, 2009. 95 USTR, “USTR Announces Regulatory Reform Initiative Results with Japan,” July 29, 2009. 96 USTR, “Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative,” report and fact sheet, July 6, 2009. 97 Tudor, “Japan Shifts Course in Halting Postal Sale,” December 5, 2009. 

98 USDOC, U.S. Foreign Commercial Service, “Doing Business in Japan: 2010 Commercial Guide for 

U.S. Companies,” February 17, 2010. 99 U.S. Embassy in Japan, “Statement on AUSTR Wendy Cutler’s Meeting with Cabinet Office Senior 

Vice Minister Kouhei Ohtuka,” February 24, 2010. 100 USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), “Japan: Issues and Analysis,” Briefing Rooms, July 22, 

2009. 101 USTR, “Ambassador Kirk Meets Japanese Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu,” October 8, 2009; USDA, 

“Agriculture Secretary Vilsack meets Japanese Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu,” October 9, 2009. 102 GTIS, Global Trade Atlas Database (accessed February 26, 2010). 
5-20 

Automobiles 

In June 2009, new legislation supporting an environmentally friendly vehicle purchase 

and scrap incentive program (Japan’s version of “Cash for Clunkers”) went into effect.103

The program provides subsidies to encourage purchases of newer, more fuel-efficient 

automobiles. However, U.S. automobiles imported using Japan’s Preferential Handling 

Procedure (PHP) certification process are not eligible for the purchase program.104 These 

restrictions continued throughout the year.105 

The automotive industry was especially hard hit by the worldwide economic downturn. 

Between 2008 and 2009, U.S. exports of passenger vehicles to Japan and total U.S. 

exports of passenger vehicles decreased at a similar pace of 46.4 percent and 44.1 percent 

respectively. In 2009, U.S. exports of passenger vehicles totaled $28.4 billion, and just 

$295.0 million, or slightly over 1 percent of the total, was shipped to Japan. 

Republic of Korea

Korea was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country two-way trading partner with 

two-way merchandise trade valued at $65.8 billion in 2009, accounting for 2.6 percent of 

U.S. trade with the world. The United States recorded an $11.7 billion trade deficit with 

Korea in 2009, the smallest deficit in the last decade (figure 5.11). At the same time, the 

U.S. trade surplus in services with Korea fell $455.0 million to $6.6 billion in 2009 

(figure 5.12). 

U.S. exports to Korea were valued at $27.1 billion in 2009, a decrease of 18.1 percent 

over 2008. Leading U.S. exports to Korea during the year included aircraft, transistors, 

corn, and ferrous waste and scrap. Most of the 2008 leading exports showed declines in 

value, but strong increases in exports of transistors, xylenes, certain medicaments, and 

computer memory chips, among others, partially offset those declines. 

U.S. imports from Korea totaled $38.8 billion, a decrease of 17.0 percent from 2008. 

Leading U.S. imports from Korea included cellular phones, automobiles, computer parts 

and accessories (mainly memory modules), and computer chips. There were declines in 

the value of all of the major leading imports (accounting for nearly half of the value of 

total imports). U.S.-Korea merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.36 

through A.38. 

U.S.-Korean trade relations in 2009 were dominated by the status of the U.S.-Korea FTA, 

which was signed in June 2007 but had not been approved and implemented as of yearend 2009; the agreement on a protocol to resume exports of U.S. beef to Korea, which 

 103 Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, “Japanese Government Incentives for the Purchase of 

Environmentally Friendly Vehicles,” September 24, 2009. 104 USTR, “Kirk Comments on Changes to Japan’s Cash-for-Clunkers Program,” January 19, 2010. 105 Japan opened the purchase program on January 19, 2010, to automobiles under the PHP import 

certification process and provided a list of specific eligible models on February 3, 2010. However, as of 

March 2010, there are still limits on the number of U.S. automobile models that qualify, and the United States 

continues to encourage Japan to make its program as inclusive and transparent as possible. Japan Ministry of 

Economy, Trade and Industry, “The Announcement regarding Japan’s Subsidy Scheme for Environmental 

Friendly Vehicles (“eco-cars”),” January 19, 2010; USTR, “Kirk Comments on Release of List of U.S. Autos 

Models That Qualify for Japan’s Cash for Clunkers Program,” February 3, 2010. 
5-21 

FIGURE 5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2005–09 a 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

had been suspended originally over bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) concerns 

in late 2003; and the removal of Korea from the Special 301 watch list, which identifies 

countries with which the United States has concerns over IPR enforcement. 

U.S.-Korea FTA 

The United States and the Republic of Korea signed an FTA on June 30, 2007, after 

concluding negotiations in April of that year. The U.S.-Korea FTA would, if approved by 

Congress and implemented, be the “most commercially significant” free trade agreement 

for the United States since NAFTA entered into force in 1994.106 

At the end of 2009, the agreement was pending approval by the U.S. Congress and the 

Korean National Assembly. Major areas of contention for the United States concern beef 

(see below) and automobiles.107 A number of U.S. manufacturers, union groups, and 

legislators have publicly opposed the agreement and cite concerns over market access for 

automobiles.108 Korea is a major vehicle producer and exporter but has low levels of 

import penetration. 

Beef 

Before 2008, Korea intermittently suspended imports of beef from the United States 

because of concerns about BSE.109 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 World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).110 It permits all U.S. beef (bone-in and 

 106 USTR, “United States and Korea Conclude Historic Trade Agreement,” April 2, 2007. 107 USTR, 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2010, 229. 108 USITC, U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, 2007, 3-85–3-90. 109 For details, see USITC, The Year in Trade, 2008, 5-21–5-22. 110 OIE, “Resolution No. XXIV: Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Status of 

Member Countries.” The Office International des Epizooties was established in 1924. In May 2003, the 

Office became the World Organization for Animal Health, but kept its historical acronym OIE. See 

http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_about.htm?e1d1.
5-22 

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.111

In response to significant public opposition to resuming imports of U.S. beef in Korea,112

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.113

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,114 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 2009, although at levels well below 

what they were before the 2003 ban. 

Intellectual Property Rights 

In April 2009, USTR removed Korea from the Special 301 Watch List in recognition of 

significant improvements Korea made in its IPR regime, as well as the Korean 

government’s policy direction of continuing to place a priority on improving its IPR 

regime.115 Korea had been on either the Watch List or Priority Watch List in every year 

since the Special 301 Report was started in 1989. 

Taiwan

Taiwan was the United States’ 10th largest single-country trading partner based on twoway trade in 2009, and accounted for 1.8 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The 

narrowing of the bilateral deficit with Taiwan, which amounted to $11.4 billion in 2009 

compared to $12.6 billion the year before, was mostly attributable to a decrease of U.S. 

imports from Taiwan (figure 5.13). The United States also ran a services trade surplus 

with Taiwan in 2009, which amounted to $517.0 million in 2009 compared to a $397.0 

million deficit the year before (figure 5.14). 

U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan amounted to $16.7 billion in 2009, down 29.3 

percent from 2008. This decline was mostly attributable to a fall in U.S. exports of 

computer chips, ferrous and stainless steel waste and scrap, and staple crops, and caused 

Taiwan to fall from the 13th to 14th largest destination for U.S. exports in 2009. Leading 

U.S. exports to Taiwan included semiconductor manufacturing and assembly equipment, 

computer chips, aircraft, and corn. 

 111 USTR, 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report, March 2009, 151. 112 USITC, Global Beef Trade, 2008, 6-2. 113 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. 114 USTR, “Statement from USTR Schwab on the Issuing of the Korea Beef Protocol,” June 25, 2008. 115 USTR, “2010 Special 301 Report,” April 30, 2010, 10. 
5-23 

FIGURE 5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.14 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2005–09 a 

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

In 2009, U.S. imports from Taiwan amounted to $28.1 billion, representing a 22.5 

percent decrease from 2008. The drop in overall imports from Taiwan was mostly 

attributable to a fall in electronic component imports, which declined as a result of weak 

U.S. consumer demand throughout 2009. Despite this decrease, Taiwan rose from the 

12th to the 9th largest source of U.S. imports in 2009, surpassing three major oil 

producers (Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria). Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan 

apparatuses for navigational radios, parts for data processing machines, and reception 

apparatuses for televisions. 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. Nonetheless, annual meetings between the United States and Taiwan have 

been suspended since mid-2007 because of a dispute involving Taiwan’s restrictions on 

imported U.S. beef.116 However, in 2009, U.S. officials engaged Taiwan throughout the 

year on a range of issues under the TIFA.117

Intellectual Property Rights 

In April 2008, USTR published in its annual Special 301 Report that an Out-of-Cycle 

Review (OCR) would be initiated for Taiwan to evaluate ongoing progress in IPR 

enforcement. USTR completed the OCR in January 2009 and Taiwan was subsequently 

removed from the Special 301 watch list, where it had been since 2004. It was removed 

from the watch list largely as a result of the establishment of a specialized IPR court and 

a Ministry of Education plan to protect IPR on school campuses.118

Due to an amendment to Taiwan’s 2007 copyright law, Taiwan prosecutors were also 

able to initiate more prosecutions involving peer-to-peer networks in April 2009. 

 116 American Chamber of Commerce, Taipei, “AmCham Urges Early Scheduling of TIFA Talks,” 

February 9, 2010. 117 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010. 118 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” April 20, 2009. 
5-24 

Furthermore, Taiwan’s government enacted a number of laws that would take punitive 

action against Internet service providers (ISPs) that are found to be complicit in IPR 

violations.119

Beef 

Due to concerns over bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in 2009 Taiwan continued to 

restrict the importation of beef from animals over 30 months in age. Taiwan also 

continued to require the removal of specified risk materials from animals less than 30 

months of age, even though the internationally accepted standard, according to USTR, is 

that these materials be removed only from animals over 30 months in age.120 On October 

22, 2009, the United States and Taiwan signed an import protocol that relaxes Taiwan’s 

restrictions on imports of U.S. beef.121 The protocol allows the importation of beef as 

long as it meets or exceeds the guidelines set forth by the World Organization for Animal 

Health.122 However, on January 5, 2010, Taiwan passed an amendment to its Food 

Sanitation Act that effectively bars the importation of a number of U.S. beef products, 

which is inconsistent with the protocol.123

Government Procurement 

On July 15, 2009, Taiwan joined the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement 

(GPA).124 The GPA is a plurilateral agreement in the WTO that is legally binding for 

those WTO members that choose to be parties to the agreement. By becoming a 

signatory, Taiwan opens its market for government procurement to foreign firms, 

including those from the United States, while allowing Taiwanese firms the opportunity 

to participate in the government procurement markets of other GPA signatories.125

Taiwan’s government procurement market was valued by USTR at more than $18 billion 

in 2006 and $21 billion in 2007.126 Taiwan estimates that its procurement market covered 

under the GPA is worth about $6 billion.127

 119 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” April 20, 2009. 120 USTR, 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2010, 486. 121 U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, “Baucus Letter regarding the Taiwan Government’s Failure to 

Implement the Beef Import Protocol,” December 31, 2009; USTR, “2010 Report on Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures,” March 31, 2010. 122 Taiwan Department of Health, “Protocol of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)—Related 

Measure for the Importation of Beef and Beef Products for Human Consumption from the Territory of the 

Authorities Represented by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT),” October 22, 2009, 

http://food.doh.gov.tw/foodnew/Files/Focus/TECROAIT.pdf. 123 USTR, “2010 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,” March 31, 2010, 70. 124 WTO, “The Plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).” 125 USDOC, ITA, “Taiwan’s Accession to Government Procurement Agreement to Create Opportunities 

for U.S. Businesses,” August 2009. 126 USTR, 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2010, 483. 127 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 146. 
5-25 

Brazil

Brazil was the United States’ 11th largest single-country two-way trading partner and the 

United States’ largest South American partner, with two-way merchandise trade valued at 

$41.7 billion in 2009, accounting for 1.7 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The United 

States recorded a $2.5 billion trade surplus with Brazil in 2009, a significant 

improvement from its $1.0 billion deficit in 2008 and from deficits in previous years 

(figure 5.15). On the other hand, the U.S. trade surplus in services with Brazil decreased 

$332.0 million to $7.0 billion in 2009 (figure 5.16). 

U.S. exports to Brazil were valued at $22.1 billion in 2009, a decrease of 23.7 percent 

over 2008. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil during the year included aircraft and aircraft 

parts (including turbofan engines for Brazilian-manufactured aircraft), refined petroleum 

products, and coal. Among the leading exports, there were significant declines in exports 

of petroleum products and certain medicaments. There was an especially large decrease 

in the value of aircraft and aircraft parts (reflected in both quantity and unit values) in 

2009. 

U.S. imports from Brazil totaled $19.6 billion, a decrease of 34.8 percent from 2008. 

Leading U.S. imports from Brazil included crude petroleum, coffee, pig iron, and aircraft 

(regional jet aircraft). Nearly all U.S. imports of leading products from Brazil declined in 

2009. There was an especially large decrease in the value of aircraft (reflected in both 

quantity and unit values), which accounted for 8 percent of the total decrease in the value 

of imports. 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, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.16 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2005–09 a 

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 
5-26 

U.S.-Brazilian dialogue on a possible Trade and Investment Framework Agreement is 

discussed in the following section. Also, there were two active WTO cases involving the 

United States and Brazil during 2009. On August 31, 2009, WTO arbitrators determined 

the level of countermeasures that Brazil can impose on U.S. trade in the case brought by 

Brazil concerning U.S. subsidies on upland cotton (DS267).128 Also, a WTO disputesettlement panel was established on September 25, 2009, in the case brought 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). 

Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 

In September 2009, a U.S. delegation traveled to Brazil to discuss with Brazilian officials 

the possibility of establishing a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement or similar 

framework in order to deepen bilateral economic ties.129 The United States put forward 

the view that Brazil is an important U.S. trading partner, but as yet there is no formal 

structure for bilateral trade relations; a TIFA could provide such a structure.130

The Brazilian Foreign Minister suggested that Brazil is open to the idea, but raised the 

question of whether a TIFA is essential to U.S.-Brazil economic relations. The Brazilian 

government expressed the view that there are already a number of bilateral consultative 

mechanisms through which it can engage the United States on trade issues. Brazilian 

officials said that Brazil would seek to ensure that any framework would not involve 

discussions on tariffs, as Brazil shares a common external tariff with other members of 

Mercosur.131 Although no definitive agreement was reached during the initial encounter, 

both sides agreed to continue discussions on the subject.132

India

In 2009, India was the 14th largest U.S. trading partner, accounting for 1.4 percent of 

total U.S. merchandise trade (exports plus imports). U.S.-India merchandise trade 

declined 17.0 percent to $35.9 billion in 2009, but the decline was still less than the 23.8 

percent decline in total U.S. trade, likely because India’s economy was relatively less 

affected by the 2008–09 global financial crisis and recession compared to more 

internationally connected economies.133 The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with India 

was $6.6 billion in 2009, a decrease of $1.9 billion compared to 2008 (figure 5.17). 

However, the U.S. services trade deficit with India increased to $2.1 billion in 2009 from 

 128 On April 20, 2010, the United States and Brazil signed an MOU, which established a fund for 

technical assistance and capacity building in the cotton sector. On June 25, 2010, both sides signed a 

framework agreement regarding the dispute: Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution to the Cotton 

Dispute in the World Trade Organization (WT/DS267). 129 USTR, “Ambassador Ron Kirk Concludes Visit to Brazil,” September 18, 2009. 130 USTR, “Remarks by Ambassador Ron Kirk at the American Chamber of Commerce,” September 16, 

2009. 131 MRE, “Brasil recebe com cautela proposta dos EUA para negociar acordo de comércio,” September 

19, 2009. 132 USTR, “Ambassador Ron Kirk Concludes Visit to Brazil,” September 18, 2009. 133 USCIA, World Factbook, India section. 
5-27 

FIGURE 5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2005–09 FIGURE 5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2005–09 a 

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Billions of $

Exports Imports Trade balance

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC. 

 a Data for 2009 are preliminary. 

 $1.6 billion in 2008. While U.S. imports of Indian services declined $0.1 billion to $12.0 

billion, U.S. exports of services to India decreased $0.6 billion to $9.9 billion (figure 

5.18). 

U.S. merchandise exports to India were $14.6 billion in 2009, a decrease of $2.7 billion 

or 15.6 percent compared to 2008. Leading U.S. exports to India were civilian aircraft 

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

diamonds, and oil from coal tar. In 2009, India Air—the Indian flagship carrier—took 

delivery of 12 of the 68 aircraft it ordered from Boeing in 2005.134 The value of the 

exports of these aircraft was about $2 billion. A sharp decline in unit value caused the 

value of exports of diammonium phosphate to decline 61.2 percent, from $2.7 billion in 

2008 to $1.0 billion in 2009, despite an increase in the quantity of exports. 

U.S. merchandise imports from India were $21.2 billion in 2009, a decrease of $4.6 

billion or 17.9 percent. Leading U.S. imports from India in 2009 were nonindustrial 

diamonds, therapeutic or prophylactic medicaments, gold and platinum jewelry, pipe for 

oil and gas pipelines, bed linens, towels, and apparel. Imports of nonindustrial diamonds 

declined 20.4 percent to $3.1 billion in 2009 compared to $3.9 billion in 2008. Despite 

this decline, the Indian share of total U.S. imports of nonindustrial diamonds increased to 

24.8 percent in 2009 from 20.4 percent in 2008. Similarly, the Indian share of total U.S. 

imports of gold and platinum jewelry also increased, despite lower imports of these 

products from India. U.S.-India merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables 

A.45 through A.47. 

Despite nontariff barriers and high—often prohibitive—tariffs on agriculture,135 U.S. 

exports of agricultural products (HS chapters 1–24) to India increased $186 million (51.8 

percent) to $545 million in 2009. During 2009, 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 

performance concerning intellectual property. India’s agricultural trade policy, bilateral 

trade and investment issues, and IPR situation are discussed below. 

 134 Statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 135 USITC, India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports, November 

2009, i. 
5-28 

Agriculture 

Indian policymakers manage the supply of agricultural commodities in the domestic 

market by changing trade policies frequently. 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.136 Because 

India is home to more than one-sixth of the world’s food consumers and more than onetwelfth of the world’s farmland,137 changes in India’s agricultural trade policies can 

impact U.S. and global trade in agricultural commodities. 

Rice 

Imports of rice were free of duty at the beginning of 2009, as the 70 percent ad valorem 

duty had been suspended in March 2008. However, in March 2009, the tariff was 

reimposed.138 In October 2009, India again suspended the 70 percent import duty on all 

types of rice—this time until September 30, 2010—after low monsoon rainfall led to 

reduced expectations for rice production.139 There were also changes specific to Indian 

exports of basmati rice during the year. In January 2009, India suspended the $163 per 

ton export duty on basmati rice. India also lowered its minimum export price several 

times during the year, resulting in a total change from $1,200 per metric ton in January to 

$900 per metric ton in September.140

Wheat 

Despite extensive negotiations, India still does not allow imports of U.S. wheat.141 India’s 

intolerance of weed seeds has effectively banned U.S. wheat shipments.142 Wheat imports 

from approved sources (the United States is not on the list of approved sources)—which 

were allowed subject to quota during 2008—were also banned for all of 2009. For the 

first half of 2009, India also banned all wheat exports. Exports subject to a quota were 

allowed during the second half of the year. Some additional exports were expected to be 

allowed through March 2010.143

 136 USITC, India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports, November 

2009, 5–7. 137 USCIA, World Factbook, World section, India section, January 21, 2010. 138 USITC, India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports, November 

2009, 5–7. 139 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Rice Monthly Update, November,” November 13, 2009. 140 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed; Rice Exports Developments, 2009,” January 23, 

2009, 2; USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Update, October 2009,” October 23, 2009. 141 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed; Annual 2010,” February 17, 2010. 142 USTR, 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2010, 240. 143 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Annual, 2010,” February 17, 2010. 
5-29 

Edible Oil 

India’s import duties on crude palm, soybean, and sunflower oil, which were suspended 

starting in April 2008, remained suspended for all of 2009. Likewise, the reduced import 

duty of 7.5 percent on most refined edible oils remained in place.144 The suspension of 

duties on crude soybean oil led to $120 million in U.S. exports of crude soybean oil to 

India in 2009; U.S. exports of crude soybean oil to India had been effectively nil in 2008. 

Sugar 

India experienced a shortfall of domestically supplied sugar in 2009. The shortfall was 

caused by several factors: crop switching due to relative increases in prices for other 

crops, increased demand for another sweetener derived from sugarcane (“gur”), lower 

rainfall due to a poor and uneven monsoon, and the financial troubles of the sugar mills, 

which caused payment delays. India’s standard policy is to allow duty-free imports of 

raw sugar only when the raw sugar is to be refined in India and then re-exported. In 

February 2009, India began to temporarily allow duty-free imports of raw sugar to be 

refined by Indian mills and consumed in India. The mills that imported this raw sugar 

duty-free had to commit to exporting equivalent quantities of refined sugar derived from 

domestic raw sugar when domestic raw sugar supplies improved. By April, India had 

dropped the requirement that mills export equivalent quantities of refined sugar derived 

from domestic raw sugar in the future. In July 2009, India delayed the expiration of the 

policy of allowing unconditionally duty-free imports of raw sugar from August 2009 to 

April 2010. Further, the government allowed the importation of refined sugar without 

duty up to an aggregate quantity of 1 million metric tons until November 2009.145 These 

policy changes have led to a large increase in imports of raw and refined sugar by India, 

which has driven world prices higher and caused shifts in global trade flows.146

Trade and Investment Dialogue 

The United States and India announced the creation of a Strategic Dialogue forum in July 

2009. Under the new dialogue, the United States-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF) is the 

core element of the economics, trade, and agriculture pillar of the Strategic Dialogue and 

continues to be the principal bilateral forum for government officials to discuss trade and 

investment.147 The sixth ministerial-level meeting of the TPF was held on October 26, 

2009, in New Delhi, where the two governments agreed to continue their bilateral trade 

policy dialogue, to work on a framework for cooperation in trade and investment, and to 

promote cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in each other’s 

markets.148

The U.S. and Indian chairs of the TPF Focus Groups met regularly during 2009. The 

groups discussed intellectual property rights, market access in the services sector, tariff 

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

 144 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Oilseeds and Products; Quarterly Update, February 2009,” 

February 10, 2009, 3. 145 USDA, FAS, “GAIN Report, India: Sugar; Semi-annual,” October 5, 2009. 146 USDA, ERS, “Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook,” March, 15, 2010, 4. 147 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 149. 148 USTR, “United States and India Meet During Trade Policy Forum,” November 9, 2009. 
5-30 

policy. The United States and India also agreed to reconstitute the Private Sector 

Advisory Group (PSAG) in early 2010.149 The PSAG will provide recommendations to 

the TPF. Additionally, the two countries agreed to conclude a framework for Cooperation 

on Trade and Investment in early 2010.150

Intellectual Property Rights 

Since 1989, India has been on the USTR’s priority watch list of countries with significant 

IPR problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation.151 USTR 

continued this designation in 2009, urging India to improve its IPR regime with stronger 

protection for copyrights and patents. In addition, USTR has been pressing for legislation 

to protect against unfair commercial use of private data that foreign pharmaceutical and 

agrochemical companies have developed in clinical and field trials before applying for 

marketing approval.152 USTR also identified the need for new Indian legislation to 

implement the provisions of the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet 

Treaties and to address optical disc piracy.153 USTR identified as a positive development 

India’s recent passage of a law that increases penalties for spurious pharmaceuticals; 

most of the counterfeit pharmaceuticals seized by U.S. Customs officials in 2009 

originated in India.154

 149 USTR, 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, March 2010, 149. 150 On March 17, 2010, the United States and India signed a “Framework for Cooperation on Trade and 

Investment” agreement that increases bilateral cooperation and seeks to increase trade. USTR, “India,” 

http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india (accessed March 23, 2010). 151 IIPA, “2009 Special 301 Submission,” February 18, 2009, Appendix D. 152 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” April 30, 2009, 22–23. 153 USTR, “2009 Special 301 Report,” April 30, 2009, 23. 154 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, “Intellectual Property Rights,” October 2009. 
Biblio-1 

Bibliography 

American Chamber of Commerce, Taipei. “AmCham Urges Early Scheduling of TIFA Talks.” News 

release, February 9, 2010. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Further Analytical Study on the Likely Economic Impact of 

an FTAAP. 2009/CSOM/R/010. Singapore: APEC, 2009. 

http://aimp.apec.org/Documents/2009/SOM/CSOM-R/09_csom_r_010.pdf. 

_____. “Joint Statement at 21st APEC Ministerial Meeting,” November 12, 2009. 

http://www.apec.org/apec/ministerial_statements/annual_ministerial/2009_21th_apec_ministerial.

html. 

_____. “Leaders’ Declaration 2009: Sustaining Growth, Connecting the Region,” November 15, 2009. 

http://www.apec.org/apec/leaders__declarations/2009.html. 

_____. APEC Secretariat. APEC at a Glance, 2010. APEC#210-SE-05.2. Singapore: APEC, 2009. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=989. 

_____. APEC Secretariat. Key Trends and Developments Relating to Trade and Investment Measures and 

Their Impact on the APEC Region. 2009/AMM/015. Singapore: APEC, 2009. 

http://aimp.apec.org/Documents/2009/MM/AMM/09_amm_015.pdf. 

_____. APEC Secretariat. Outcomes & Outlook 2009–10. APEC#210-SE-05.1. Singapore: APEC, 2010. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=990. 

_____. Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI). Annual Report to Ministers. APEC#209-CT-01.6. 

Singapore: APEC, 2009. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=945. 

_____. Senior Officials’ Meeting Chair’s Office. “APEC Ministers Take Concrete Actions to Improve 

Business Environment.” Press release, November 12, 2009. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Monetary Policy Report to the Congress. Washington, 

DC: Federal Reserve, February 24, 2010. 

_____. “Summary Measures of the Foreign Exchange Value of the Dollar,” n.d. 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/Summary/ (accessed various dates). 

Cámara Nacional del Autotransporte de Carga (CANACAR). Notice of Arbitration under the Arbitration 

Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North America Free 

Trade Agreement, April 2, 2009. http://www.naftaclaims.com/Disputes/USA/TruckingII/CANACAR-USA-02-04-09.pdf. 

Central Intelligence Agency (USCIA). The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/ (accessed various dates). 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “A Guide to Articles 14 and 15 of the North 

American Agreement to Environmental Cooperation,” January 12, 2000. 

http://www.cec.org/pubs_docs/documents/index.cfm?ID=242&varlan=english. 

_____. “CEC Secretariat Council,” n.d. 

http://www.cec.org/who_we_are/secretariat/index.cfm?varlan=english (accessed March 20, 

2009). 

_____. “Citizen Submission on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions.” 

http://www.cec.org/citizen/status/index.cfm?varlan=english (accessed March 19, 2009). 
Biblio-2 

_____. “Ministerial Statement: Sixteenth re Session of the CEC Council.” Denver, Colorado, June 24, 

2009. 

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1491&SiteNodeID=219&BL_ExpandID

=158. 

Commission for Labor Cooperation. “The National Administrative Offices.” 

http://www.naalc.org/commission/nao.htm (accessed February 25, 2010). 

Council of the European Union. “2009 EU-US Summit Declaration.” Press release, November 3, 2009. 

European Commission. Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. The Use of Voluntary Standards 

in Support of EU Legislation, 2009. http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Global/upload/THE-USE-OFVOLUNTARY-STANDARDS-IN-SUPPORT-OF-EU-LEGISLATION.pdf. 

_____. Impact Assessment Guidelines, January 15, 2009. 

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf. 

Executive Office of the President. “Determinations and Report of the President concerning the Review of 

Ecuador and Bolivia under the Andean Trade Preference Act, As Amended.” Press release, June 

30, 2009. 

Gabbett, Rita Jane. “China Sets Date for Accepting U.S. Pork Shipments.” Daily News—Industry News—

PM. Meatingplace.com, May 17, 2010. 

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). Global Trade Atlas Database (accessed various dates). 

Global Wind Energy Council. “Global Wind Power Boom Continues despite Economic Woes.” Press 

release, March 2, 2010. 

Government of Brazil. Ministry of External Relations (MRE). “La Brasil recebe com cautela proposta dos 

EUA para negociar acordo de comércio [Brazil receives U.S. proposal to negotiate trade 

agreement with caution.]” Press release, September 19, 2009. 

Government of Canada. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. “Government of Canada to 

Begin Formal WTO Consultations on U.S. Country-of-Origin Labeling.” Press release no. 232, 

December 1, 2008. 

Government of Canada. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. “Statement from Minister Day 

on Softwood Lumber Tribunal Ruling.” Press release no. 278, September 28, 2009. 

Government of Japan. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. “The Announcement regarding Japan’s 

Subsidy Scheme for Environmental Friendly Vehicles (‘Eco-cars’).” Press release, January 19, 

2010. 

_____. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform 

and Competition Policy Initiative. July 6, 2009. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/namerica/us/economy/framework-r.html. 

Inside U.S. Trade. “Order Signals U.S. Victory in Canada Lumber Case, Extent May Be Limited.” World 

Trade Online database, February 5, 2010. 

http://www.insidetrade.com/secure/display.asp?dn=INSIDETRADE-28-5-18&f=wto2002.ask. 

International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). “2009 Special 301 Submission,” February 18, 2009. 

International Monetary Fund. International Financial Statistics database. (accessed various dates). 

Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. “Japanese Government Incentives for the Purchase of 

Environmentally Friendly Vehicles.” Fact sheet, September 24, 2009. 

http://www.jama.org/library/pdf/FactSheet10-2009-09-24.pdf. 
Biblio-3 

London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). “Case No. 7941—The United States of America, 

Claimant, v. Canada, Respondent—Award on Liability,” March 3, 2008. 

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/award_on_export_measures.pdf. 

_____. “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. 

NAFTA Secretariat. “Chapter 19 Cases Reviewing Canadian, U.S., and Mexican Agencies’ 

Determinations.” http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/StatusReportResults.aspx (accessed February 

25, 2010). 

_____. “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” January 18, 2010. http://www.nafta-secalena.org/en/view.aspx?x=226. 

_____. “Status Report of Panel Proceedings,” March 3, 2009. http://www.nafta-secalena.org/en/view.aspx?conID=616. 

North American Development Bank. BECC-COCEF Quarterly Status Report, December 31, 2009. 

http://www.nadbank.org/pdfs/status_eng.pdf. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Annual Report. Paris: OECD, 2009. 

_____. Economic Outlook 86, November 2009. Paris, OECD: 2009. 

http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34109_20347538_1_1_1_1,00.html. 

_____. Council. “2009 Ministerial Council Meeting: Follow-up.” C(2009)110, July 15, 2009. 

_____. Council. “2009 Ministerial Council Meeting: Follow-up.” C(2009)110/REV1/ADD1, October 8, 

2009. 

_____. Council. “2009 Ministerial Council Meeting: Follow-up.” C(2009)110/REV1, September 11, 2009. 

_____. Trade and Agriculture Directorate. Trade Committee. “Summary Record of the 152nd Session of 

the Trade Committee: Confidential Session; Paris, 29 April 2009.” TAD/TC/M(2009)1/ANN, 

July 27, 2009. 

_____. Trade and Agriculture Directorate. Trade Committee. “Summary Record of the 152nd Session of 

the Trade Committee: Plenary Session; Paris, 28-29 April 2009.” TAD/TC/M(2009)1, July 27, 

2009. 

_____. Trade and Agriculture Directorate. Trade Committee. “Summary Record of the 153rd Session of 

the Trade Committee: Confidential Session; Paris, 27-29 October 2009.” 

TAD/TC/M(2009)2/ANN, January 19, 2010. 

_____. Trade and Agriculture Directorate. Trade Committee. “Summary Record of the 153rd Session of 

the Trade Committee: Plenary Session; Paris, 27-29 October 2009.” TAD/TC/M(2009)2, January 

13, 2010. 

_____. “Accession: Estonia, Israel and Slovenia invited to join OECD.” News release. May 10, 2010. 

Sek, Leonore. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers: 

Current Issues and Legislation.” CRS Report for Congress, February 20, 2008. 

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101801.pdf. 
Biblio-4 

Taiwan Department of Health. Protocol of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)-Related Measures 

for the Importation of Beef and Beef Products for Human Consumption from the Territory of the 

Authorities Represented by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). Washington, DC: Taiwan 

Department of Health, October 22, 2009. 

http://food.doh.gov.tw/foodnew/Files/Focus/TECROAIT.pdf. 

Topoleski, John J. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Trade Retaliation: The ‘Carousel’ 

Approach.” CRS Report for Congress, March 5, 2002. 

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/23368.pdf. 

Transatlantic Economic Council. “Review of Progress under the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic 

Economic Integration between the United States of America and the European Union,” October 

27, 2009. 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/files/tec_progress_report_20091027_en.pdf. 

_____. “TEC Statement: Message to the EU-US Summit,” October 27, 2009. 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/files/tecstatement20091027_en.pdf. 

Tudor, Alison. “Japan Shifts Course in Halting Postal Sale.” Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125991789252076421.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r

1:c0.0578813:b29210018. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Meets Japanese Minister 

Hirotaka Akamatsu.” News release, October 9, 2009. 

_____. “Letter to Chinese Minister of Commerce from Secretary Locke,” April 30, 2009. 

_____. “Statement by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Regarding U.S. Beef Trade with Korea.” News 

release, September 7, 2006. 

_____. “U.S. and China Agree on Reopening Chinese Pork Market to U.S.” News release, March 18, 

2010. 

_____. Agricultural Marketing Service. “Country of Origin Labeling,” March 5, 2010. 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/COOL. 

_____. Economic Research Service (ERS). “Japan: Issues and Analysis.” Briefing, July 22, 2009. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/japan/issuesandanalysis.htm#beef. 

USDA. Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed; Annual 2010. GAIN 

Report No. IN1011. New Delhi: FAS, February 17, 2010. 

_____. GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed Update; October 2009. GAIN Report No. IN9134. New 

Delhi: FAS, October 23, 2009. 

_____. GAIN Report, India: Grain and Feed; Rice Exports; Developments, 2009. GAIN Report No. 

IN9011. New Delhi: FAS, January 23, 2009. 

_____. GAIN Report, India: Oilseeds and Products; Quarterly Update, February 2009. GAIN Report No. 

IN1046. New Delhi: FAS, February 10, 2009. 

_____. GAIN Report, India: Rice; Monthly Update, November. GAIN Report No. IN9146. New Delhi: 

FAS, November 13, 2009. 

_____. GAIN Report, India: Sugar; Semi-annual. GAIN Report No. IN9129. New Delhi: FAS, October 5, 

2009. 

_____. GAIN Report, Mexico: Mexico Announces Tariff Modifications on 36 U.S. Agricultural Products.

GAIN Report No. MX9010. Mexico City: FAS, March 18, 2009. 
Biblio-5 

_____. “Minutes of the Meeting Held on 27 May, U.S.-Canada Consultative Committee on Agriculture.” 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/canada/CCA-05-27-09.pdf (accessed April 14, 2010). 

_____. “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers: Frequently Asked Questions,” September 15, 2009. 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/taafaqs.asp. 

_____. “Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program,” March, 2010. 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/TAAfactsheet.pdf. 

_____. “USDA Launches Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program.” Press release, March 1, 

2010. 

USDA. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “Export Requirements for Meat, Poultry & Processed 

Egg Products—Export Requirements for People’s Republic of China.” CH-91, April 15, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and USTR Ronald Kirk 

Convene 20th Session of U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade in Hangzhou, 

China.” Press release, October 21, 2009. 

_____. “Commerce Secretary Gary Locke Announces Support for U.S.-China Energy Cooperation 

Program.” Press release, October 28, 2009. 

_____. “Congress Makes Changes to Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program,” n.d. 

http://www.taacenters.org/ (accessed April 16, 2010). 

_____. “Fact Sheet: Eleven Agreements Signed at the 20th U.S.-China JCCT.” Press release, October 29, 

2009. 

_____. “Fact Sheet: U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.” Press release, October 29, 

2009. 

_____. “U.S. Delegation Media Availability at the 20th U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and 

Trade.” Press release, October 28, 2009. 

_____. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “GDP Rises in the Fourth Quarter.” News release, February 

26, 2010. 

_____. Survey of Current Business 90, no. 1 (January 2010). 

_____. “Table 7a: Business, Professional, and Technical Services: 2006–2008.” U.S. International 

Services: Cross-Border Trade 1986-2008, and Services Supplied Through Affiliates, 1986-2007. 

Washington, DC: BEA, October 30, 2009. http://www.bea.gov/international/intlserv.htm. 

_____. “U.S. Current-Account Deficit Increases in Fourth Quarter 2009.” News release, March 18, 2010. 

_____. “U.S. Current-Account Deficit Decreases in 2009.” News release, March 18, 2010. 

_____. U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data. Washington, DC: BEA, 2010. 

http://www.bea.gov/international/bp_web/. 

_____. “U.S. International Transactions: First Quarter of 2009.” Survey of Current Business 89, no. 7 

(July 2009). http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2009/07%20July/0709_itaq-text.pdf. 

_____. “U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2009.” News release, March 18, 2010. 

_____. “U.S. International Transactions: Third Quarter of 2009.” Washington, DC: BEA, 2009. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/01January/0110_itaq_text.pdf. 

USDOC. Economic Development Administration (EDA). “Community Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Program: Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.eda.gov/PDF/CTAA%20FAQs_030510.pdf

(accessed April 16, 2010). 
Biblio-6 

_____. “Community Trade Adjustment Assistance Program Overview.” 

http://www.eda.gov/PDF/CTAA%201-pager.pdf (accessed April 16, 2010). 

_____. “Program and Funding Opportunities.” 

http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/CommunityTAA.xml (accessed April 16, 2010). 

_____. “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: About Us.” http://www.taacenters.org/about.html

(accessed April 16, 2010). 

_____. “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: Frequently Asked Questions.” 

http://www.taacenters.org/faqs.html (accessed March 11, 2010). 

_____. “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: Program Benefits.” 

http://www.taacenters.org/benefits.html (accessed March 11, 2010). 

USDOC. International Trade Administration (ITA). “2009 AGOA Forum—Realizing the Full Potential of 

AGOA Through Expansion of Trade and Investment,” August 5, 2009. 

http://www.agoa.gov/pdf/2009_AGOA_Forum_Complete_Session_Notes.pdf. 

_____. “Taiwan’s Accession to Government Procurement Agreement to Create Opportunities for U.S. 

Businesses.” Press release, July 15, 2009. 

_____. “Office of Japan, Market Opening Initiatives,” March 8, 2010. 

http://www.mac.doc.gov/japan/market-opening/market-opening.htm#partnership. 

USDOC. Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “Trade Data: U.S. Imports and Exports of Textiles 

and Apparel.” http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/msrpoint.htm (accessed April 16, 2010). 

USDOC. U.S. Commercial Service. Doing Business in Japan: 2010 Commercial Guide for U.S. 

Companies. Washington, DC: U.S. Commercial Service, February 17, 2010. 

http://www.buyusa.gov/japan/en/ccg.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy. “U.S.-China Clean Energy Announcements.” Press release, November 17, 

2009. 

_____. “U.S.-China Energy Research Center Announced.” Press release, July 15, 2009. 

_____. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Official Energy Statistics Database. “U.S. Imports by 

Country of Origin.” 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm (accessed 

April 3, 2009). 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Intellectual 

Property Rights Seizure Statistics Fiscal Year 2009,” October 2009. 

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/ipr/pubs/seizure/. 

_____. “Japan, US Sign Arrangement to Align Security Standards for Cross-Border Business.” News 

release, July 1, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). 2009 Congressional Budget Justification: Employment and 

Training Administration Overview. Washington, DC: USDOL, 2008. 

http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/2009/PDF/CBJ-2009-V1-03.pdf. 

_____. 2011 Congressional Budget Justification: Employment and Training Administration Overview. 

Washington, DC: USDOL, 2010. http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/2011/PDF/CBJ-2011-V1-03.pdf. 

_____. Employment and Training Administration (ETA). “Changes to TAA program – Questions and 

Answers,” December 28, 2009. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/ChangesFAQ.cfm#1. 
Biblio-7 

_____. Getting Back to Work after a Trade-Related Layoff. Washington, DC: USDOL, n.d. 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/pdf/TAA_brochure_eng.pdf (accessed April 20, 2010). 

_____. “Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),” April 2009. 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/RevisedPetition.pdf. 

_____. “Search for Trade Adjustment Assistance Cases,” March 31, 2010. 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm. 

_____. “State Reporting Requirements,” January 7, 2010. 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa/StateReportReq.cfm. 

_____. “Trade Act Program: TAA for Workers: What’s New,” March 26, 2010. 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/. 

_____. “Trade Adjustment Assistance Application Process,” December 31, 2009. 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/petitions.cfm. 

_____. “What’s New: Notice to Petitioners.” July 2, 2009. http://doleta.gov/tradeact/. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the 

Government of Canada.” http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3740.htm (accessed February 25, 2010). 

_____. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican States.” 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3742.htm (accessed February 25, 2010). 

_____. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States of America.” 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3741.htm (accessed February 25, 2010). 

_____. “October 23 Informal Meeting of TNC (Geneva 000909),” October 23, 2009. 

_____. “OECD Ministerial Council Meeting (MCM) 2009 (Paris 000951),” July 15, 2009. 

_____. “Report on the WTO Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation; Friday, 24 July 

2009; JOB(09)/84; Chairman’s Remarks (Geneva 000620),” July 27, 2009. 

_____. “Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke Meets with Chinese Leaders on Bilateral Trade Issues 

(Beijing 003170),” November 25, 2009. 

_____. “Transatlantic Economic Council.” Foreign Press Center briefing, October 27, 2009. 

http://fpc.state.gov/131350.htm. 

_____. “WTO General Council Meeting on Reappointment of DG, April 29–30, 2009 (Geneva 000339),” 

May 1, 2009. 

_____. “WTO General Council Meeting, December 17–18, 2009 (Geneva 001177),” December 18, 2009. 

_____. “WTO General Council Meeting, February 3, 2009 (Geneva 000103),” February 5, 2009. 

_____. “WTO General Council Meeting, July 28, 2009 (Geneva 000646),” July 3, 2009. 

_____. “WTO General Council Meeting, November 17, 2009 (Geneva 001041),” November 19, 2009. 

_____. “WTO General Council Meeting, October 20, 2009 (Geneva 000907),” October 23, 2009. 

_____. “WTO Ministerial Conference (State 123787),” December 3, 2009. 

USDOS. Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. “Trans Atlantic Economic Framework, Annex I, 

B.3(e): Chemicals and Nanomaterials.” http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/eu/tec/131906.htm

(accessed March 11, 2010). 

_____. “Trans Atlantic Economic Framework, Annex I, A: Horizontal Cooperation,” 2009. 

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/eu/tec/131815.htm. 
Biblio-8 

_____. United States-Japan Investment Initiative 2009 Report. July 6, 2009. 

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/reports/2009/125605.htm. 

USDOS. Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. “Background Note: Canada,” February 2010. 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm. 

USDOS. Secretary of State, Washington, DC. “Information Regarding U.S. Announcement of Intent to 

Participate in Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement (Washington DC 066292),” November 

14, 2009. 

USDOS. U.S. Embassy in China. “U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Fact Sheet,” 

October 29, 2009. http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/102909jcct.html. 

USDOS. U.S. Embassy in Japan. “Statement on AUSTR Wendy Cutler’s Meeting with Cabinet Office 

Senior Vice Minister Kouhei Ohstuka.” Press release, February 24, 2010. 

USDOS. U.S. Embassy in Vietnam. “TPP Country Representatives Looking to Melbourne for Answers 

(Hanoi 001406),” December 9, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. “U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces U.S.-Japan 

Agreement on Open Skies.” Press release, December 11, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Treasury. “Joint Press Release on the First Round of the U.S.-China Strategic and 

Economic Dialogue.” Press release, July 28, 2009. 

U.S.-EU Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue (FMRD). Joint Report on U.S.-EU Financial Markets 

Regulatory Dialogue. Washington: TEC, October 27, 2009. 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/files/joint_report_on_fmrd_en.pdf. 

U.S.-EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum (HLRCF). “Report on the Sixth Meeting of the ECU.S. HLRCF,” July 24, 2009. 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/files/summary_report_24_july_en.pdf. 

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. “‘How To’ Manual on Trade 

Adjustment Assistance in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” February 24, 2009. 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/taa.pdf. 

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 2007. USITC Publication 

4037. Washington, DC: USITC, 2008. 

_____. Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From China. USITC Publication 4085. 

Washington, DC: USITC, July 2009. 

_____. 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. 

_____. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 2009 (Revision 1). Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, February 1, 2009. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0901gn.pdf#page=166. 

_____. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 2009: Supplement (Rev. 1). Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, September 3, 2009. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0911C98.pdf. 

_____. India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports. USITC Publication 

4107. Washington, DC: USITC, 2009. 
Biblio-9 

_____. Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to Adjust Rules of Origin 

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement. USITC Publication 4095. Washington, DC: 

August 2009. 

_____. Textiles and Apparel: Effects of Special Rules for Haiti and Trade Markets and Industries. USITC 

Publication 4016. Washington, DC: USITC, 2008. 

_____. USITC to Investigate the Probable Economic Effect of Duty-Free Imports of a U.S.-Trans-Pacific 

Partnership Free Trade Agreement; Seeks Input From Trade Associations, Industry Officials, and 

Other Interested Parties. News release, January 11, 2010. 

_____. U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. 

USITC Publication 3949. Washington, DC: USITC, 2007. 

_____. Wind Turbines. USITC Publication ITS-02. Washington, DC: USITC, June 2009. 

_____. The Year in Trade 2001: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program; 53rd Report. USITC 

Publication 3510. Washington, DC: USITC, May 2002. 

_____. The Year in Trade 2007: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program; 59th Report. USITC 

Publication 4026. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2008. 

_____. The Year in Trade 2008: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program; 60th Report. USITC 

Publication 4091. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2009. 

U.S. National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). Report on the Use of Voluntary Standards in 

Support of Regulation in the United States. Washington, DC: NIST, October, 2009. 

http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/upload/Use-of-Voluntary-Standards-in-Support-of-US-Regulation.pdf. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “Memorandum for Regulatory Policy Officers at 

Executive Departments and Agencies and Managing and Executive Directors of Certain Agencies 

and Commissions,” July 7, 2008. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Secretariat General of the European Commission. 

Review of the Application of EU and U.S. Regulatory Impact Assessment Guidelines on the 

Analysis of Impacts on International Trade and Investment. Washington: OMB, 2008. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/sg-omb_final.pdf. 

U.S. Senate Finance Committee. “Baucus Letter Regarding the Taiwan Government’s Failure to 

Implement the Beef Import Protocol.” Press report, December 31, 2009. 

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2001 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. 

Washington, DC: USTR, 2001. 

_____. 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 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 2009. 

_____. 2009 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance. Washington, DC: USTR, December 2009. 

_____. 2009 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, 2009. 

_____. 2009 Trade Policy Agenda and 2008 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USTR, 2009. 

_____. 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 2010. 

_____. 2010 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Washington, DC: USTR, March 31, 2010. 

_____. 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report. Washington DC: USTR, March 2010. 

_____. “Ambassador Kirk Meets Japanese Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu.” Press release, October 8, 2009. 
Biblio-10 

_____. “Ambassador Ron Kirk Concludes Visit to Brazil.” Press release, September 18, 2009. 

_____. “India,” March 17, 2010. http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india. 

_____. “Kirk Comments on Release of List of U.S. Autos Models that Qualify for Japan’s Cash for 

Clunkers Program.” Press release, February 3, 2010. 

_____. “Letter to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden from Ambassador Ronald Kirk,” January 28, 2010. 

_____. “Remarks by Ambassador Ron Kirk at the American Chamber of Commerce.” Press release, 

September 16, 2009. 

_____. Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative. 

Washington, DC: USTR, July 6, 2009. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/ 1185. 

_____. “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab regarding entry into force of the Peru 

FTA.” Press release, January 16, 2009. 

_____. “Statement from USTR Schwab on the Issuing of the Korea Beef Protocol.” Press release, June 25, 

2008. 

_____. “The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Summary of Key Elements under Discussion.” Press 

release, November 6, 2009. 

_____. “The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Releases Statement of ACTA Negotiating Partners 

on Recent ACTA Negotiations”. Press release, April 16, 2010. 

_____. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” December 14, 2009. http://www.ustr.gov/tpp. 

_____. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Announcement.” Press release, December 14, 2009. 

_____. “Tribunal Finds Canada Failed to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press release, 

September 28, 2009. 

_____. “Tribunal Orders Canada to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press release, 

February 26, 2009. 

_____. “U.S. and China Agree on Reopening Chinese Pork Market to U.S.” Press release, March 18, 

2010. 

_____. “U.S. Files WTO Case Challenging EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports.” Press release, June 

22, 2009. 

_____. “U.S. Responds to Canadian Failure to Cure Breach of the Softwood Lumber Agreement.” Press 

release, April 3, 2009. 

_____. “U.S., Brazil Agree upon Path toward Negotiated Solution of Cotton Disputes.” Press release, 

April 6, 2010. 

_____. “U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: How Trade Promotion Authority Works.” Fact sheet, 

April 8, 2008. 

_____. “USDA, USTR Applaud Agreement by Congressional Appropriators on Poultry Imports from 

China.” Press release, September 25, 2009. 

_____. “United States and India Meet during Trade Policy Forum.” Press release, November 9, 2009. 

_____. “United States and Korea Conclude Historic Trade Agreement.” Press release, April 2, 2007. 

_____. “United States Files WTO Case against China over Export Restraints on Raw Materials.” Press 

release, June 23, 2009. 
Biblio-11 

_____. “United States Files WTO Case against China over Illegal Support for Chinese ‘Famous Brands.’” 

Press release, April 26, 2009. 

_____. “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 Requests WTO Panel against China over Export Restraints on Raw Materials.” 

Press release, November 4, 2009. 

_____. “United States Requests WTO Panel in Challenge of EU Restrictions on U.S. Poultry Exports.” 

Press release, October 8, 2009. 

_____. “United States Wins End to China’s ‘Famous Brand’ Subsidies after Challenge at WTO; 

Agreement Levels Playing Field for American Workers in Every Manufacturing Sector.” Press 

release, December 18, 2009. 

_____. “United States Wins WTO Dispute over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property Rights 

Laws.” Press release, June 22, 2009. 

_____. “USDA, USTR Applaud Agreement by Congressional Appropriators on Poultry Imports from 

China.” Press release, September 25, 2009. 

_____. “USTR and Israel Hold FTA Joint Committee Meeting.” Press release, December 15, 2009. 

_____. “USTR Announces Agreement With European Union in Beef Hormones Dispute.” Press release, 

July 13, 2009. 

_____. “USTR Announces Delay of Trade Action in Beef Hormones Dispute.” Press release, March 12, 

2009. 

_____. “USTR Announces Regulatory Reform Initiative Results with Japan.” Press release, July 29, 2009. 

_____. “USTR Announces Revised Trade Action in Beef Hormones Dispute.” Press release, January 15, 

2009. 

_____. “USTR Confirms Korea’s Announcement.” Press release, June 21, 2008. 

_____. “USTR Negotiators Report Successful First Round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks.” Press 

release, March 19, 2010. 

_____. “USTR Ron Kirk Remarks on Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations.” Press release, December 

15, 2009. 

_____. “USTR Staff Meet with Trans-Pacific Partnership Counterparts, Prepare for Congressional 

Consultations.” Press release, November 16, 2009. 

_____. “USTR Statement on Awards in Brazil Cotton Dispute.” Press release, August 31, 2009. 

_____. “Vilsack, Kirk Comment on Canadian Panel Request Regarding Country-of-Origin Labeling.” 

Press release, October 7, 2009. 

_____. “World Trade Organization Report Upholds U.S. Trade Claims against China.” Press release, 

August 12, 2009. 

_____. “WTO Appellate Body Confirms Finding against China’s Treatment of Certain CopyrightIntensive Products.” Press release, December 21, 2009. 

Washington Trade Daily. “US, Canada Sign ‘Organic’ Agreement,” June 18, 2009. 

_____. “US, Canada Sign Procurement Pact,” February 15, 2010. 

White House. Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC, 2009. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/. 
Biblio-12 

_____. Economic Report of the President. February 2010. 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/update/01/index.htm. 

_____. Office of the Press Secretary. “Statement from the Press Secretary on the Remedy to Address 

Market Disruption From Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires.” Press 

release, September 11, 2009. 

World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Resolution XXIV: Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform 

Encephalopathy Status of Member Countries. 75 GS/FR. Paris, OIE: May 22, 2007. 

http://www.oie.int/downld/SG/2007/A_RESO_2007.pdf. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). “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). 

_____. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: 27 November 2009; Chairman’s 

Remarks.” JOB(09)/178, November 27, 2009. 

_____. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Friday, 23 October 2009; Chairman’s 

Remarks.” JOB(09)/149, October 23, 2009. 

_____. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Friday, 24 July 2009; Chairman’s 

Remarks.” JOB(09)/84, July 24, 2009. 

_____. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Monday, 23 November 2009; 

Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB(09)/175, November 23, 2009. 

_____. “Informal TNC Meeting at the Level of Head of Delegation: Tuesday, 22 September 2009; 

Chairman’s Remarks.” JOB(09)/101, September 22, 2009. 

_____. “Seventh Session: Geneva, 30 November–2 December 2009; Seventh Ministerial Conference; 

‘Chairman’s Summary.’” WT/MIN(09)/18, December 2, 2009. 

_____. Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). “Dispute Settlement: DS291: European Communities—Measure 

Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products.” Online summary prepared by the 

WTO Secretariat. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm (accessed 

April 20, 2010). 

_____. “Dispute Settlement: DS294: United States—Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating 

Dumping Margins (Zeroing).” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/dispu_e/cases_e/ds294_e.htm (accessed April 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “Dispute Settlement: DS350: United States—Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing 

Methodology.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/dispu_e/cases_e/ds350_e.htm (accessed April 20, 2010). 

_____. “Dispute Settlement: DS353: United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—

Second Complaint.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds353_e.htm (accessed April 20, 2010). 

_____. “Dispute Settlement: DS362: China—Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of 

Intellectual Property Rights.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds362_e.htm (accessed April 20, 2010). 

_____. “Dispute Settlement: DS363: China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution 

Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products.” Online summary 
Biblio-13 

prepared by the WTO Secretariat. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds363_e.htm (accessed April 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “Dispute Settlement: DS389: European Communities—Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat 

and Poultry Meat Products from the United States.” Online summary prepared by the WTO 

Secretariat. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds389_e.htm (accessed April 

20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

_____. “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 20, 2010). 

 WTO. Committee on Trade and Development. Special Session. “Special Session of the Committee on 

Trade and Development: Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Thawatchai Sophastienphong 

(Thailand), to the General Council.” TN/CTD/24, December 14, 2009. 

WTO. General Council. “17–18 December 2009: Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas; 

Communication from Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, European Union, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” 

WT/L/784, December 15, 2009. 

_____. “Annual Report (2009): Addendum.” WT/GC/121/ADD.1, February 18, 2010. 

_____. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 17 November 2009.” 

WT/GC/M/123, March 2, 2010. 

_____. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 20 October 2009.” WT/GC/M/122, 

February 26, 2010. 
Biblio-14 

_____. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 26–27 May 2009.” WT/GC/M/120, 

August 21, 2009. 

_____. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 28 July 2009.” WT/GC/M/121, 

October 7, 2009. 

_____. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 29–30 April 2009.” WT/GC/M/119, 

June 23, 2009. 

_____. “Minutes of Meeting: Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 February 2009.” WT/GC/M/118, 

March 30, 2009. 

_____. “Thursday, 17 December 2009: Agenda Item 2; Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations 

Committee.” JOB(09)/186, December 17, 2009. 

_____. “Tuesday, 17 November 2009: Agenda Item 1; Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations 

Committee.” JOB(09)/173, November 17, 2009. 

_____. General Council. “Tuesday, 20 October 2009: Agenda Item 1; Report by the Chairman of the 

Trade Negotiations Committee.” JOB(09)/143, October 20, 2009. 

_____. General Council. “Tuesday, 26 May 2009: Agenda Item 1; Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee.” JOB(09)/47, May 26, 2009. 

_____. General Council. “Tuesday, 28 July 2009: Agenda Item 1; Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee.” JOB(09)/86, July 28, 2009. 

_____. General Council. “Tuesday, 3 February 2009: Agenda Item 1; Report by the Chairman of the 

Trade Negotiations Committee.” JOB(09)/5, February 3, 2009. 

_____. General Council. “Wednesday, 29 April 2009: Appointment of the Director-General; Statement by 

the Director-General; ‘Looking Ahead.’” JOB(09)/39, April 29, 2009. 
APPENDIX TABLES 

A-3

TABLE A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 20

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 65,966 83,272 69,11 Beverages and tobacco 5,113 5,168 4,72 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 61,342 75,517 61,0

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials 41,456 75,841 54,34 Animal and vegetable oils, fats, and waxes 2,887 4,317 3,15 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 154,184 174,111 153,26 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 98,289 107,717 80,47 Machinery and transport equipment 462,700 477,111 367,28 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 107,227 111,102 98,79 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 47,193 55,666 44,6 Total 1,046,358 1,169,821 936,7

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 60,775 66,053 61,81 Beverages and tobacco 16,754 16,651 15,32 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 33,068 36,937 22,3

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials 340,462 468,444 257,34 Animal and vegetable oils, fats, and waxes 3,440 5,301 3,75 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 162,850 187,713 156,26 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 226,704 230,697 151,47 Machinery and transport equipment 739,143 718,344 567,58 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 292,897 288,917 246,99 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 66,770 71,425 66,3 Total 1,942,863 2,090,483 1,549,1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation “n.e.s.” stands for “not elsewhere specified.” 
A-4

TABLE A.2 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2007–09 

Service industry 2007 2008 2009 

% change, 

2008–09 

 Millions of $ 

Travel 97,050 110,090 94,194 –14.4 

Royalties and license fees 83,824 91,599 84,418 –7.8 

Business, professional, and technical services 101,837 113,525 114,552 0.9 

Financial services 61,393 60,190 55,728 –7.4 

Port services 31,720 36,515 27,001 –26.1 

Passenger fares 25,636 31,623 26,878 –15.0 

Freight 19,830 22,430 17,933 –20.0 

Education 15,956 17,796 19,008 6.8 

Insurance services 10,184 10,756 11,969 11.3 

Telecommunications 8,043 9,163 8,906 –2.8 

Other 22,663 22,099 21,173 –4.2 

Total 478,136 525,786 481,760 –8.4 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, table 3a, March 18, 2010. 

Note: Data for 2009 are preliminary. 
A-5

TABLE A.3 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2007–09 

Service industry 2007 2008 2009 

% change, 

2008–09 

 Millions of $ 

Travel 76,354 79,743 73,077 –8.4 

Royalties and license fees 24,656 26,616 23,858 –10.4 

Business, professional, and technical services 66,266 76,284 74,365 –2.5 

Financial services 19,750 19,143 15,113 –21.1 

Port services 21,524 26,895 20,158 –25.0 

Passenger fares 28,437 32,597 25,996 –20.3 

Freight 45,576 45,248 34,530 –23.7 

Education 4,760 5,204 5,658 8.7 

Insurance services 41,666 42,939 47,993 11.8 

Telecommunications 7,045 7,193 6,962 –3.2 

Other 2,177 2,504 2,482 –0.9 

Total 338,211 364,366 330,192 –9.4 

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, table 3a, March 18, 2010. 

Note: Data for 2009 are preliminary. 
TABLE A.4 Antidumping cases active in 2009, by USITC investigation number 

USITC investigation number Product 

Country of origin 

Date of institution 

USITC prelim 

ITAa

prelim 

ITA final 

 Affirmative = A; Negativ731-TA-1140 Uncovered innerspring units China 12/31/07 A A A 731-TA-1143 Small diameter graphite electrodes China 01/17/08 A A A 731-TA-1144 Welded stainless steel pressure pipe China 01/30/08 A A A 731-TA-1145 Steel threaded rod China 03/05/08 A A A 731-TA-1146 HEDP China 03/19/08 A A A 731-TA-1147 HEDP India 03/19/08 A A A 731-TA-1148 Frontseating service valves China 03/19/08 A A A 731-TA-1149 Circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe China 04/03/08 A A A 731-TA-1151 Citric acid and certain citrate salts Canada 04/14/08 A A A 731-TA-1152 Citric acid and certain citrate salts China 04/14/08 A A A 731-TA-1153 Tow-behind lawn groomers China 06/24/08 A A A 731-TA-1154 Kitchen appliance shelving and racks China 07/31/08 A A A 731-TA-1155 Commodity matchbooks India 10/29/08 A A A 731-TA-1156 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Indonesia 03/31/09 A A (c) 

731-TA-1157 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Taiwan 03/31/09 A A (c) 731-TA-1158 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Vietnam 03/31/09 A A (c) 731-TA-1159 Oil country tubular goods China 04/08/09 A A (c) 731-TA-1160 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand China 05/27/09 A A (c) 731-TA-1161 Steel grating China 05/29/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1162 Wire decking China 06/05/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1163 Woven electric blankets China 06/30/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1164 Narrow woven ribbons China 07/09/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1165 Narrow woven ribbons Taiwan 07/09/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1166 Magnesia carbon bricks China 07/29/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1167 Magnesia carbon bricks Mexico 07/29/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1168 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe China 09/16/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1169 Coated paper China 09/23/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1170 Coated paper Indonesia 09/23/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1171 Standard steel fasteners China 09/23/09 N (d) (d) 

731-TA-1172 Standard steel fasteners Taiwan 09/23/09 N (d) (d) 731-TA-1173 Phosphate salts China 09/24/09 (e) (c) (c) 

731-TA-1174 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube China 09/30/09 A (c) (c) 

731-TA-1175 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Mexico 09/30/09 A (c) (c) 731-TA-1176 Drill pipe China 12/31/09 (c) (c) (c) 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 fin

USITC, the date of the USITC notification of Commerce is shown. c Pending as of December 31, 2009. 

d Not applicable. e Affirmative with respect to monopotassium phosphate, dipotassium phosphate, and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate. Negative with respect to sodium 

of final action concerning the USITC negative preliminary was November 9, 2009. The date of final action concerning the USITC affirmative preliminary w

31, 2009. 

A-6
A-7

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2009 

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 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 

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 
A-8

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2009BContinued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

ChinaBContinued 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 

Color television receivers June 3, 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 

Non-frozen apple juice concentrate June 5, 2000 

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 

Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware Dec. 2, 1986 

Petroleum wax candles Aug. 28, 1986 

Iron construction castings May 9, 1986 

Natural bristle paint brushes Feb. 14, 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 
A-9

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2009BContinued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

France Low-enriched uranium Feb. 13, 2002 

Ball bearings May 15, 1989 

Brass sheet and strip Mar. 6, 1987 

Sorbitol Apr. 9, 1982 

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 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 

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 Superalloy degassed chromium Dec. 22, 2005 

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 
A-10

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2009BContinued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Japan BContinued 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 

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Mar. 25, 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 

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 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 

Top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware Jan. 20, 1987 

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 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 

Gray portland cement and clinker Aug. 30, 1990 

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 
A-11

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2009BContinued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

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 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 

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings June 16, 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 

Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware Dec. 2, 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 

Turkey Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube May 30, 2008 

Pasta July 24, 1996 

Welded carbon steel pipe May 15, 1986 
A-12

TABLE A.5 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2009BContinued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Ukraine Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

Ammonium nitrate Sept. 12, 2001 

Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

Carbon steel plate (suspended) Oct. 24, 1997 

Silicomanganese Oct. 31, 1994 

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 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. 
TABLE A.6 Countervailing duty cases active in 2009, by USITC investigation number 

USITC investigation number Product 

County of origin 

Date of institution 

USITC prelim 

ITAa

prelim 

ITA final 

 Affirmative = A; Neg701-TA-454 Welded stainless steel pressure pipe China 01/30/08 A A A 701-TA-455 Circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe China 04/03/08 A A A 701-TA-456 Citric acid and certain citrate salts China 04/14/08 A A A 701-TA-457 Tow-behind lawn groomers China 06/24/08 A A A 701-TA-458 Kitchen appliance shelving and racks China 07/31/08 A A A 701-TA-459 Commodity matchbooks India 10/29/08 A A A 701-TA-460 Ni-resist piston inserts Argentina 01/26/09 A A A 701-TA-461 Ni-resist piston inserts Korea 01/26/09 A N N 

701-TA-462 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Vietnam 03/31/09 A A (d) 

701-TA-463 Oil country tubular goods China 04/08/09 A A A 701-TA-464 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand China 05/27/09 A A (d) 701-TA-465 Steel grating China 05/29/09 A A (d) 701-TA-466 Wire decking China 06/05/09 A A (d) 701-TA-467 Narrow woven ribbons China 07/09/09 A A (d) 701-TA-468 Magnesia carbon bricks China 07/29/09 A N (d) 701-TA-469 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe China 09/16/09 A (d) (d) 701-TA-470 Coated paper China 09/23/09 A (d) (d) 701-TA-471 Coated paper Indonesia 09/23/09 A (d) (d) 701-TA-472 Standard steel fasteners China 09/23/09 N (c) (c) 

701-TA-473 Phosphate salts China 09/24/09 (e) (d) (d) 

701-TA-474 Drill pipe China 12/31/09 (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 

taken by USITC, the date of the USITC notification of Commerce is shown. 

c Not applicable. d Pending as of December 31, 2009. e Affirmative with respect to monopotassium phosphate, dipotassium phosphate, and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate. Negative with resp

tripolyphosphate. The date of final action concerning the USITC negative preliminary was November 9, 2009. The date of final action concpreliminary was pending as of December 31, 2009. 

A-13
A-14

TABLE A.7 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2009 

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 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 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 

Top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware Jan. 20, 1987 

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 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 
A-15

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

in 2009, by date of completion 

USITC 

investigation 

number Product 

Country of 

origin 

Completion 

datea Action 

731-TA-1020 Barium carbonate China 01/30/09 Continued 

731-TA-1022 Refined brown aluminum oxide China 03/02/09 Continued 

731-TA-1014 Polyvinyl alcohol China 03/27/09 Continued 

731-TA-1016 Polyvinyl alcohol Japan 03/27/09 Continued 

731-TA-1017 Polyvinyl alcohol Korea 03/27/09 Continued 

731-TA-1021 Malleable iron pipe fittings China 04/01/09 Continued 

731-TA-1013 Saccharin China 05/21/09 Continued 

731-TA-1012 Frozen fish fillets Vietnam 06/26/09 Continued 

731-TA-753 Cut-to-length carbon steel plate China 10/26/09 Continued 

731-TA-754 Cut-to-length carbon steel plate (suspended) Russia 10/26/09 Continued 

731-TA-756 Cut-to-length carbon steel plate (suspended) Ukraine 10/26/09 Continued 

AA1921-188 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Japan 11/25/09 Continued 

701-TA-432 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand India 11/25/09 Continued 

731-TA-1024 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Brazil 11/25/09 Continued 

731-TA-1025 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand India 11/25/09 Continued 

731-TA-1026 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Korea 11/25/09 Continued 

731-TA-1027 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Mexico 11/25/09 Continued 

731-TA-1028 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Thailand 11/25/09 Continued 

731-TA-1046 Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol China 11/30/09 Continued 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

a The completion date shown is the date of the USITC notification of Commerce. 
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009 Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Completed: 337-TA-533 Certain Rubber Antidegradants, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

China, Korea One remand proceeding; terminated based on a 

337-TA-543 Certain Baseband Processor Chips and 

Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets 

China, Korea One related (ancillary) enforcement and one rem

terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-545 Certain Laminated Floor Panels Canada, China, 

Malaysia, Netherlands 

One related (ancillary) consolidated enforcement proceeding; terminated based on a settlement ag

337-TA-556 Certain High-Brightness Light Emitting 

Diodes and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan One remand proceeding; terminated based on w

337-TA-565 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components 

Thereof 

China, Germany, Hong Kong, Korea 

One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; finding of violation of the remedial orders and the penalties. 

337-TA-582 Certain Hydraulic Excavators and 

Components Thereof 

Canada, Japan Issued a general exclusion order and cease and 

337-TA-601 Certain 3G Wideband Code Division 

Multiple Access (WCDMA) Handsets and Components Thereof 

Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-602 Certain GPS Devices and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan, China, Germany, Singapore 

Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and d

337-TA-604 Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners 

Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof 

China Issued a limited exclusion order. 

337-TA-605 Certain Semiconductor Chips with 

Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same 

Canada, China, Switzerland 

Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and d

337-TA-613 Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and 

Components Thereof 

Finland Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

A-16
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Completed–Continued337-TA-615 Certain Ground Fault Circuit 

Interrupters and Products Containing the Same 

China Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and d

337-TA-617 Certain Digital Televisions and Certain 

Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China 

Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and d

337-TA-619 Certain Flash Memory Controllers, 

Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Japan, British Virgin Islands, France, Ireland, Korea 

Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-621 Certain Probe Card Assemblies, 

Components Thereof and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same 

Japan, Korea Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-623b Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise 

Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) 

China Terminated based on a finding of no violation of 

(ancillary) enforcement proceeding, terminated bviolation of consent order. 

337-TA-624 Certain Systems for Detecting and 

Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

Spain Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-625 Certain Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes and 

Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents 

Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and d

337-TA-626 Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones New Zealand Terminated based on settlement agreements. 

337-TA-627 Certain Short Wavelength 

Semiconductor Lasers and Products Containing Same 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-628 Certain Computer Products, Computer 

Components and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

A-17
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Completed–Continued:337-TA-629 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages 

and Products Containing the Same 

Malaysia Issued a limited exclusion order. 

337-TA-630 Certain Semiconductor Chips with 

Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing the Same (III) 

Taiwan, Japan, China 

Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-631 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices 

and Products Containing the Same 

Japan Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and d

337-TA-634 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, 

Products Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same 

Korea Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and d

337-TA-636 Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic 

Printing Plates 

Israel, Canada Issued a limited exclusion order. 

337-TA-637 Certain Hair Irons and Packaging 

Thereof 

Singapore, China, Hong Kong 

Issued a general exclusion order. 

337-TA-640c Certain Short-Wavelength Light 

Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same 

Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, China, Japan, Korea, Finland, Sweden 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-643 Certain Cigarettes and Packaging 

Thereof 

Moldova, Belize, Singapore, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, Switzerland 

Issued a general exclusion order. 

337-TA-644d Certain Composite Wear Components 

and Products Containing the Same 

India, Italy Issued limited exclusion order and a cease and d

337-TA-645 Certain Vein Harvesting Surgical 

Systems and Components Thereof 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-646 Certain Power Supplies Taiwan, United 

Kingdom 

Terminated based on withdrawal of the complain

A-18
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Completed–Continued:337-TA-649 Certain Semiconductor Chips with 

Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing the Same (IV) 

British Virgin Islands, Singapore, Taiwan 

Terminated based on withdrawal of the complain

337-TA-651 Certain Automotive Parts Taiwan Terminated based on a settlement agreement an337-TA-653 Certain Base Stations and Wireless 

Microphones 

Korea, China Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-654 Certain Peripheral Devices and 

Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-658 Certain Video Game Machines and 

Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-659 Certain Prepregs, Laminates, and 

Finished Circuit Boards 

China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 

Terminated based on withdrawal of the complain

337-TA-660 Certain Active Comfort Footwear Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement an

complaint. 

337-TA-662 Certain Tunable Laser Chips, 

Assemblies and Products Containing the Same 

Sweden, Germany, Canada 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-674c Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, 

Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan, China Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-675 Certain Wireless Communications 

Devices and Components Thereof 

Mexico, Japan Terminated based on withdrawal of the complain

337-TA-676 Certain Lighting Control Devices 

Including Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof 

No foreign respondents 

Terminated based on a consent order. 

A-19
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Completed–Continued:337-TA-681 Certain Lighting Control Devices 

Including Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof 

No foreign respondents 

Terminated based on a consent order. 

337-TA-682 Certain Collaborative System Products 

and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

Pending: 337-TA-501 Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit 

Devices and Products Containing the Same 

Malaysia Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-564 Certain Voltage Regulators, 

Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same 

No foreign respondents 

One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; 

337-TA-568 Certain Products and Pharmaceutical 

Compositions Containing Recombinant Human Erythropoietin 

Switzerland, Germany 

One remand proceeding; pending before the Com

337-TA-587 Certain Connecting Devices For Use 

With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators ("FRLs") That Are Part of Larger Pneumatic Systems and The FRL Units They Connect 

Japan, China One remand proceeding; pending before the ALJ

337-TA-605 Certain Semiconductor Chips with 

Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing the Same 

Canada, Switzerland 

One related (ancillary) bond forfeiture proceeding

337-TA-617 Certain Digital Televisions and Certain 

Products Containing Same and Methods of Using the Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China 

One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; 

A-20
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Pending–Continued:337-TA-631 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices 

and Products Containing the Same 

Japan One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; 

337-TA-632 Certain Refrigerators and Components 

Thereof 

Korea, Mexico Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-641 Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines 

and Components Thereof 

Japan Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-644d Certain Composite Wear Components 

and Products Containing the Same 

India, Italy One related (ancillary) sanctions proceeding; pen

Commission. 

337-TA-648 Certain Semiconductor Integrated 

Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland, China, Netherlands 

Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-650 Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and 

Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan, China Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-655 Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, 

Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing the Same 

China Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-657 Certain Automotive Multimedia Display 

and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

Japan Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-661 Certain Semiconductor Chips Having 

Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong 

Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-663 Certain Mobile Telephones and 

Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof 

Korea Pending before the Commission 

A-21
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Pending–Continued:337-TA-664 Certain Flash Memory Chips and 

Products Containing the Same Korea, Taiwan, China, Malaysia, 

Hong Kong, Canada, Japan, Sweden 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-665 Certain Semiconductor Integrated 

Circuits and Products Containing the Same 

Cayman Islands, Singapore 

Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-666 Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent 

Lamp ("CCFL") Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan, Korea Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-667e Certain Electronic Devices, Including 

Handheld Wireless Communications Devices 

Finland, Canada, Taiwan, Japan 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-668 Certain Non-Shellfish Derived 

Glucosamine and Products Containing the Same 

China, Canada Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-669 Certain Optoelectronic Devices, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

No foreign respondents 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-670 Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support 

Systems and Components Thereof 

Canada Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-671 Certain Digital Cameras No foreign 

respondents 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-672 Certain Electronic Devices Having 

Image Capture or Display Functionality and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-673e Certain Electronic Devices Including 

Handheld Wireless Communications Devices 

Korea, Finland, Taiwan, Japan, Canada 

Pending before the ALJ. 

A-22
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Pending–Continued:337-TA-677 Certain Course Management System 

Software Products 

Canada Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-678 Certain Energy Drink Products United Kingdom, 

United Arab Emirates

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-679 Certain Products Advertised As 

Containing Creatine Ethyl Ester 

No foreign respondents 

Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-680 Certain Machine Vision Software, 

Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing the Same 

Germany, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-683 Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices 

and Products Containing the Same 

Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canada 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-684 Certain Articulated Coordinate 

Measuring Arms and Components Thereof 

Belgium, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-685 Certain Flash Memory and Products 

Containing the Same 

Japan, Taiwan, China 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-686 Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers 

and Components Thereof and Welding Wire 

China, Sweden, Korea, Italy 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-687 Certain Video Displays, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-688 Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and 

Components Thereof 

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-689 Certain Dual Access Locks and 

Products Containing the Same 

China, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, England, Germany 

Pending before the ALJ. 

A-23
TABLE A.9 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2009 and 

December 31, 2009–Continued Status of Investigation Article Countrya Commission final determination Pending–Continued:337-TA-690 Certain Printing and Imaging Devices 

and Components Thereof 

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

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 the Same 

Korea Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-693 Certain Foldable Stools China Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-694 Certain Multimedia Display and 

Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-695 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages 

and Products Containing the Same 

No foreign respondents 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-696 Certain Restraining Systems for 

Transport Containers, Components Thereof, and Methods of Using the Same 

China Pending before the ALJ. 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

a This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the investigation. “Hong Kong” refers to “Hong Kong, China.” b Inv. no. 337-TA-623 had an underlying investigation and an enforcement proceeding; both were terminated during the year. c Inv. no. 337-TA-640 was consolidated with Inv. No. 337-TA-674. d The underlying investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-644 was terminated on November 24, 2009; a sanctions motion in this matter is pen

counted as active. 

e Inv. no. 337-TA-667 was consolidated with Inv. No. 337-TA-673. 

A-24
A-25

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2009 

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 Thereof 

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 
A-26

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2009–Continued

Investigation 

No. Article Countrya Date patent 

expiresb

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 

Aug. 10, 2010 

Aug. 13, 2010 

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 June 7, 2015 

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 

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 

July 8, 2014 

337-TA-473 Certain Video Game Systems, Accessories, and 

 Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Dec. 18, 2015 

Dec. 25, 2015 

337-TA-474 Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable 

 Compact Discs 

Hong Kong, Taiwan May 23, 2012 

337-TA481/491 Certain Display Controllers with Upscaling Functionality 

 and Products Containing Same; and Certain Display 

 Controllers and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan Feb. 24, 2017 

337-TA-482 Certain Compact Disc and DVD Holders Denmark, Hong Kong, 

Taiwan 

May 1, 2015 

337-TA-486 Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding 

 Lawnmowers, and Components Thereof 

China Nonpatent 

337-TA-487 Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof China, Netherlands, 

France, Germany, and 

Canada 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-489 Certain Sildenafil or Any Pharmaceutically Acceptable 

 Salt Thereof, Such as Sildenafil Citrate, and Products 

 Containing Same 

Belize, Israel, Nicaragua, 

Syria, United Kingdom, 

India, China 

June 18, 2011 

337-TA-492 Certain Plastic Grocery and Retail Bags Thailand, China, 

Singapore, Hong Kong 

Dec. 6, 2010 

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 
A-27

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2009–Continued

Investigation 

No. Article Countrya Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-505 Certain Gun Barrels Used in Firearms Switzerland, Netherlands Sept. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2017 

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 

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 

June 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 

June 10, 2017 

June 10, 2017 

June 10, 2017 

337-TA-549 Certain Ink Sticks for Solid Ink Printers Korea Apr. 29, 2022 

Apr. 29, 2022 

Apr. 29, 2022 

337-TA-557 Certain Automotive Parts Taiwan June 22, 2018 

July 27, 2018 

Sept. 28, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018 

Oct. 26, 2018 

Mar. 1, 2019 

Mar. 22, 2019 

337-TA-563 Certain Portable Power Stations and Packaging Therefor China Feb. 4, 2017 

Nonpatent 

Nonpatent 

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 
A-28

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2009–Continued

Investigation 

No. Article Countrya Date patent 

expiresb

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, and 

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-605 Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip 

Package Size and Products Containing Same 

Canada, Switzerland, 

China 

Sept. 24, 2010

Sept. 24, 2010

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 

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-625 Certain Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes and Components 

Thereof 

No foreign respondents Jan. 12, 2015 

337-TA-629 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products 

Containing the Same 

Malaysia Jun. 21, 2021 

Sept. 16, 2022

337-TA-631 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products 

Containing the Same 

Japan May 29, 2018 

337-TA-634 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products 

Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same 

Korea Jun. 12, 2018 

Sept. 16, 2019

Nov. 5, 2019 

Mar. 23, 2029 

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 
A-29

TABLE A.10 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2009–Continued

Investigation 

No. Article Countrya Date patent 

expiresb

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 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

a

 This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the investigation. “Hong Kong” refers to 

“Hong Kong, China” b

 Multiple 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 were either GSP eligible or GSP duty free, by HTS provision, 2009, millions 

HTS No. Description Total Imports GS

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 78,766 2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 63,630 

3824.90.40 Fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin and mixtures thereof 1,376 

7202.41.00 Ferrochromium containing more than 3 percent of carbon 4,393 7113.11.50 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of silver, n.e.s.o.i., valued over $18 per dozen pieces or parts 1,096 

7202.30.00 Ferrosilicon manganese 1,189 7113.19.29 Gold necklaces and neck chains, other than rope or mixed link 2,350 4011.10.10 New pneumatic radial tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and 

 racing cars 316 

7606.12.30 Aluminum alloy plates, sheets, and strip, of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm, rectangular (including 

square), not clad 708 

7113.19.50 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal except silver, except necklaces and clasps 1,293 2905.11.20 Methanol (methyl alcohol), n.e.s.o.i. 201 3907.60.00 Polyethylene terephthalate in primary forms 453 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. 976 

4011.20.10 New pneumatic radial tires, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or trucks 747 8544.30.00 Ignition wiring sets, other wiring sets of a kind used in vehicles, aircraft or ships 565 2106.90.99 Edible food preparations, n.e.s.o.i. 139 

8708.99.81 Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 119 6802.99.00 Monumental or building stone and articles thereof, n.e.s.o.i., of natural stone, n.e.s.o.i. 3,702 

7323.93.00 Stainless steel table, kitchen or other household articles and parts thereof 127 4015.19.10 Gloves, mittens and mitts, seamless, of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber, other than surgical 

or medical 322 

 Top 20 items 162,467 

 All other 1,377,546  Total 1,540,013 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 eligible for GSP treatment or duty free, by HTS import categories, 2009, m

HTS Section Description Total imports GSP eligible 

I Live animals; animal products 18,241 58 II Vegetable products 24,824 835 III Animal and vegetable fats, oils, and waxes 3,818 180 IV Prepared foodstuffs; beverages, spirits; tobacco 39,270 1,762 

V Mineral products 254,658 12,913 VI Chemical products 144,169 2,901 VII Plastics and rubber 43,543 2,468 VIII Raw hides and skins, leather, furskins; saddlery; handbags 8,783 325 

IX Wood; charcoal; cork; straw and other plaiting materials 10,361 624 X Wood pulp; paper and paperboard 21,136 0 XI Textiles and textile articles 83,105 401 XII Footwear, headgear, umbrellas; artificial flowers 20,668 24 XIII Stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, ceramic and glass articles 12,014 1,098 XIV Pearls, precious or semi-precious stones; imitation jewelry 38,467 2,125 

XV Base metals and articles of base metal 71,642 2,626 XVI Machinery and appliances; electrical equipment 414,169 4,369 XVII Vehicles, aircraft, vessels, transport equipment 152,952 1,135 

XVIII Optical, photographic, medical, and musical instruments; clocks 53,632 879 

XIX Arms and ammunition; parts and accessories thereof 2,798 74 XX Miscellaneous manufactured articles 60,789 366 XXI Works of art, collectors' pieces and antiques 5,036 0 XXII Special classification provisions 55,939 0  Total 1,540,013 35,165 

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, 2007–09

Source 2007 2008 2009 

% change,

2008–09

 Thousands of $ 

Nigeria 30,137,133 35,366,204 17,228,232 –51.3

Angola 4,767,934 9,794,965 4,225,139 –56.9

Republic of South Africa 1,076,985 2,427,690 1,642,893 –32.3

Republic of Congo 1,604,868 2,639,141 1,471,657 –44.2

Gabon 1,673,605 2,143,355 1,210,007 –43.5

Chad 1,487,552 2,309,230 1,190,403 –48.5

Lesotho 379,592 338,797 277,046 –18.2

Madagascar 281,443 277,051 210,004 –24.2

Kenya 250,352 252,243 204,982 –18.7

Mauritius 112,347 97,291 98,747 1.5

Cameroon 169,173 441,316 96,750 –78.1

Swaziland 135,838 125,387 94,718 –24.5

Malawi 27,568 26,680 39,734 48.9

Democratic Republic of 

Congo 39,478 65,234 35,652 –45.3

Botswana 31,331 15,803 12,362 –21.8

Ethiopia 4,741 9,392 6,723 –28.4

Ghana 56,151 31,494 2,303 –92.7

Senegal 14 10,229 1,585 –84.5

Tanzania 2,815 1,527 1,006 –34.1

Uganda 1,189 473 222 –53.1

Rwanda 0 5 63 1,098.8

Mali 9 4 62 1,494.2

Djibouti 0 0 17 (a

)

Zambia 73 5 7 41.4

Niger 27 1 3 312.1

Guinea 27 1 1 70.8

Mozambique 825 129 0 –100.0

Namibia 28,579 6 0 –100.0

The Gambia (b

) 0 0(a)

Benin 0 0 0 (a

)

Burkina Faso 0 0 0 (a

)

Burundi 0 0 0 (a

)

Cape Verde 0 0 0 (a

)

Comoros (c

) 0 0(a)

Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 (a

)

Liberia 0 0 0 (a

)

Mauritania 0 0 (b

) (a)

São Tomé and Príncipe 0 0 0 (a

)

Seychelles 0 0 0 (a

)

Sierra Leone 0 0 0 (a

)

Togo (c

) 0 0(a)

Total 42,269,649 56,373,651 28,050,318 –50.2

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

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

 a

 Not applicable. 

 b

 U.S. value less than $500. 

 c

 Not AGOA eligible. 
A-33

TABLE A.14 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under AGOA, by HTS provision, 2007–09 

HTS No. Description 2007 

Millio

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 37,117 42709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 1,772 

8703.23.00 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity 1,500-3000 cc 438 

2710.11.25 Naphthas, not motor fuel/blending stock, from petroleum oils/oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 493 

6204.62.40 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 254 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. 665 

6203.42.40 Men's or boys' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not containing 15 percent 

or more down 201 

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 225 

7202.11.50 Ferromanganese containing by weight more than 4 percent carbon 150 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 20 

6205.20.20 Men's or boys' shirts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not certified hand-loomed and folklore product 80 

6110.30.30 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers, 

n.e.s.o.i. 66 

6104.62.20 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 71 8703.24.00 Other passenger motor vehicles, with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over (a) 

3823.70.60 Industrial fatty alcohols, other than derived from fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin 48 

6105.10.00 Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 66 0805.10.00 Oranges, fresh or dried 38 6103.43.15 Men's or boys' trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 21 

6204.63.35 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 24 

2401.20.85 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped, threshed or similarly processed, not from cigar leaf 4 

2204.21.50 Non-sparkling wine of fresh grapes, other than Tokay, not over 14 percent alcohol, in containers not over 2 

liters 28 

6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 50 6105.20.20 Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted, of manmade fibers, containing less than 23 percent by weight of 

wool or fine animal hair 11 

6104.63.20 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 23 2207.10.60 Undenatured ethyl alcohol for nonbeverage purposes 26  Total of items shown 41,893 5

 All other 377  Total of all commodities 42,270 5Source: 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 inclu

a U.S. value is less than $500,000. 
A-34

TABLE A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by source, 2007–09

Source 2007 2008 2009

% change 

2008–09

 Millions of $ 

Colombia 4,528 7,339 5,589 –23.8

Ecuador 4,614 6,595 2,748 –58.3

Peru 3,017 3,169 1,376 –56.6

Bolivia 148 140 0 –100.0

Total 12,307 17,243 9,714 –43.7

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. 
A-35

TABLE A.16 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under ATPA, by HTS provision, 2007–09 

HTS No. Description 2007 2008 

Millions of $ 

2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 5,840.30 10,128.10 2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 1,644.90 2,078.50 

0603.11.00 Roses, fresh 327.2 310.3 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. 408.7 628.7 

7403.11.00 Refined copper cathodes and sections of cathodes 989.1 844.4 

0603.19.00 Anthuriums, alstroemeria, gypsophilia, lilies, snapdragons and other flowers n.e.s.o.i., fresh 187.8 192.5 

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 297.4 239.9 

2710.11.25 Naphthas, not motor fuel/blending stock, from petroleum oils/oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 294.1 377.1 

6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 155.5 162.5 

6105.10.00 Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 165.4 176.2 0603.14.00 Chrysanthemums, fresh 65.5 66.9 6203.42.40 Men's or boys' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not 

containing 15 percent or more down 98.6 85.8 

0709.20.90 Asparagus, fresh or chilled, n.e.s.o.i. 159.3 145.2 

1604.14.30 Tunas and skipjack, not in oil, in airtight containers, n.e.s.o.i. 67.9 70.1 

0603.12.70 Carnations, other than miniature, fresh 42.2 37.8 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 (b) 36.1 

0804.50.40 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period September 1 

through May 31 of the following year, inclusive 30.0 32.6 

2005.99.80 Artichokes, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen 39.1 46.5 

0806.10.60 Grapes, fresh, if entered during the periods January 1 through February 14 or July 1 through 

December 31, inclusive 17.9 24.4 

0710.80.97 Vegetables n.e.s.o.i., uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, reduced in 

size 34.8 36.0 

6110.30.30 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of 

man-made fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 26.9 26.3 

6908.90.00 Glazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed ceramic mosaic cubes and the 

like, n.e.s.o.i. 21.3 27.4 

6106.10.00 Women's or girls' blouses and shirts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 52.4 60.6 6204.62.40 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches, and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 22.7 21.3 

0603.12.30 Miniature (spray) carnations, fresh 27.7 24.2  Total of items shown 11,016.3 15,879.1 

 All other 1,290.5 1,363.6  Total of all commodities 12,306.80 17,242.70 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 Does not include data for Bolivia in 2009. 

b U.S. value is less than $50,000.
A-36

TABLE A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by source, 2007–09

Source 2007 2008 2009

% change, 

2008–09

 Thousands of $ 

Trinidad and Tobago 2,832,296 2,365,386 1,533,773 –35.2

Haiti 430,389 405,118 388,854 –4.0

Jamaica 235,947 319,600 212,365 –33.6

Bahamas 137,351 141,038 96,545 –31.5

Belize 54,460 129,517 66,019 –49.0

Panama 31,191 46,466 20,607 –55.7

Guyana 10,099 20,613 14,418 –30.1

St. Lucia 8,594 11,081 10,937 –1.3

St. Kitts–Nevis 16,189 14,071 8,919 –36.6

Barbados 7,100 6,913 4,603 –33.4

Netherlands Antilles 3,598 11,933 868 –92.7

Antigua 132 94 231 145.7

Aruba 295 229 153 –33.2

St. Vincent and Grenadines 216 171 117 –31.6

Dominica 45 200 115 –42.5

Grenada 25 126 78 –38.0

British Virgin Islands 65 437 26 –94.1

Costa Rica 1,417,864 1,252,756 0 –100.0

Dominican Republic 310,104 0 0 (a

)

Total 5,495,960 4,725,747 2,358,628 –50.1

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the USDOC. 

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Two CAFTA–DR countries were only 

eligible for CBERA benefits before CAFTA–DR entered into force (implementation date): Dominican 

Republic (March 1, 2007) and Costa Rica (January 1, 2009). 

a

 Not applicable. 
A-37

TABLE A.18 U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under CBERA, by HTS provision, 2007–09 

HTS No. Description 2007 2008 

Millions of $ 

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 1,309.5 904.0 2905.11.20 Methanol (methyl alcohol), n.e.s.o.i. 1,004.2 1,175.2 

2207.10.60 Undenatured ethyl alcohol for nonbeverage purposes 263.4 483.1 

6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 195.7 168.9 6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats, and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 139.8 145.8 

3903.11.00 Polystyrene, expandable, in primary forms 133.2 135.5 2710.11.25 Naphthas, not motor fuel/blending stock, from petroleum oils/oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 227.2 143.6 

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. 76.6 19.6 

2207.20.00 Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength 65.0 20.0 

2009.11.00 Frozen concentrated orange juice 100.3 64.7 

6109.90.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers 64.6 22.1 

0714.90.20 Fresh or chilled yams, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets 23.3 29.9 

1604.14.40 Tuna and skipjack, not in airtight containers 14.1 12.9 0807.20.00 Papayas (papaws), fresh 15.5 14.0 1701.11.10 Raw sugar not containing added flavoring or coloring 31.0 22.3 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 80.4 15.1 

8529.10.20 Television antennas and antenna reflectors, and parts suitable for use therewith 5.6 7.7 

7108.12.50 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought, other than gold bullion and ore 0.7 26.9 

2207.10.30 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent volume or 

higher, for beverage purposes 7.6 8.7 

0804.30.40 Pineapples, fresh or dried, not reduced in size, in crates or other packages 377.9 393.1 

0804.50.40 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period September 1 

through May 31 of the following year, inclusive 5.3 5.2 

2202.90.90 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i. 3.1 4.2 

2008.99.90 Fruit and other edible parts of plants n.e.s.o.i., other than pulp, otherwise prepared or 

preserved, n.e.s.o.i. 4.5 5.5 

2103.90.80 Mixed condiments and mixed seasonings, excluding articles containing over 10 percent 

sugars and cake decorations or similar products 3.8 3.4 

0804.50.60 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period June 1 through 

August 31, inclusive 1.5 2.7 

 Total of items shown 4,153.9 3,834.1 

 All other 1,342.1 891.6  Total of all commodities 5,496.0 4,725.7 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 incl

CAFTA-DR countries were only eligible for CBERA benefits before CAFTA-DR entered into force (implementation date): Dominican Re

and Costa Rica (January 1, 2009). 
A-38

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute-settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2009 

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS26 European Communities - 

Measures Concerning 

Meat and Meat Products 

(Hormones) 

United States EC requests consultations under Article 21.5 (12/22/08). 

EC and U.S. sign memorandum of understanding on a 

temporary solution to the dispute (05/13/09). 

DS27 European Communities B

Regime for the Importation, 

Sale and Distribution of 

Bananas 

Ecuador, 

Guatemala, 

Honduras, Mexico, 

United States 

Ecuador requests consultations under Article 21.5 

(11/16/06). 

Ecuador submits revised request for consultations 

(11/28/06). 

Colombia (11/29/2006), Belize, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, the 

Dominican Republic, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines, and Suriname (11/30/06), Cameroon 

(12/04/06), Jamaica (12/06/06), and Panama and the U.S. 

(12/11/06) request to join the consultations. EC accepts 

their requests. 

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 

circulated (11/26/08). 

Parties announce comprehensive agreement (12/15/09). 

DS217 United States - Continued 

Dumping and Subsidy 

Offset Act of 2000 

Australia, Brazil, 

Chile, European 

Communities, 

India, Indonesia, 

Japan, Korea, 

Thailand 

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 (2006-08). 

Japan and EC request that the dispute remain under 

examination at the DSB (04/20/09). 

 

DS267 United States B Subsidies 

 on Upland Cotton 

Brazil 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. The parties 

subsequently seek suspension of arbitration proceedings 

(11/21/05). 

Brazil requests the establishment of a panel (08/18/06). 

DSB agrees, if possible, to refer the matter raised by Brazil 

to the original panel (09/28/06). 

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). 
A-39

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute-settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2009–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS291 European Communities B

Measures Affecting the 

Approval and Marketing of 

Biotech Products 

United States 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). 

DS294 United States B Laws, 

Regulations and 

Methodology for 

Calculating Dumping 

Margins (Zeroing) 

European 

Communities 

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 panel report is circulated (12/17/08). 

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report circulated (05/14/09). 

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report adopted (06/11/09). 

DS316 European Communities - 

Measures Affecting Trade 

in Large Civil Aircraft 

United States U.S. requests consultations with EC (10/06/04). 

U.S. requests establishment of a panel (05/31/05). 

Panel established (07/20/05). 

Chairman of the panel informs the DSB that it now expects 

to complete its work before the end of April 2010 (12/03/09).

DS322 United States B Measures 

Relating to Zeroing and 

Sunset Reviews 

Japan Panel report circulated (09/20/06). 

Appellate Body report circulated (01/9/07). 

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). 

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 circulated (08/18/09). 

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report adopted (08/31/09). 
A-40

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute-settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2009–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS340 China B Measures 

Affecting Imports of 

Automobile Parts 

United States U.S. requests consultations with China (03/30/06). 

U.S. requests establishment of a panel (09/15/06). 

DSB establishes a single panel pursuant to DSU Article 9.1 

to consider similar complaints against China made by EC 

(DS339), U.S. (DS340), and Canada (DS342) (10/26/06). 

Panel report circulated (07/18/08). 

China notifies DSB of decision to appeal (09/15/08). 

Appellate Body report circulated (12/15/08). 

Appellate Body report adopted (01/12/09). 

DS343 United States B Measures 

Relating to Shrimp from 

Thailand 

Thailand Thailand requests consultations (04/24/06). 

Panel established (10/26/06). 

Panel report circulated (02/29/08). 

Thailand (04/17/08) and U.S. (04/29/08) notify DSB of 

decision to appeal. 

Appellate Body report circulated (07/16/08). 

Appellate Body report adopted (08/01/08). 

U.S. reports on status of implementation to the DSB 

(04/20/09). 

DS344 United States B Final 

Antidumping Measures on 

Stainless Steel from 

Mexico 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations (05/26/06). 

Japan requests to join the consultations (06/09/06). 

Mexico requests establishment of a panel (10/12/06). 

Panel established (10/26/06). 

Panel report circulated (12/20/07). 

Mexico notifies DSB of decision to appeal (01/31/08). 

Appellate Body report circulated (04/30/08). 

Appellate Body report adopted (05/20/08). 

Mexico requests that the reasonable period of time be 

determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 

21.3(c) (08/11/08). 

Article 21.3 arbitration report circulated (10/31/08). 

U.S. informs DSB that U.S. and Mexico concluded a 

sequencing agreement (05/20/09). 

DS345 United States B Customs 

Bond Directive for 

Merchandise Subject to 

Anti-Dumping/Countervaili

ng Duties 

India India requests consultations (06/06/06). 

Brazil, China, and Thailand request to join the consultations 

(06/21/06). 

India requests establishment of a panel (10/13/06). 

Panel established (11/21/06). 

Chairman of panel informs the DSB that panel will not be 

able to complete its work within the standard 6-month time 

frame (07/27/07). 

Panel report circulated (02/29/08). 

India (04/17/08) and U.S. (04/29/08) notify DSB of decision 

to appeal. 

Appellate Body report circulated (07/16/08). 

U.S. and India notify DSB of agreement on reasonable time 

for U.S. to implement DSB recommendations (10/31/08).

U.S. reports on status of implementation to the DSB 

(04/20/09). 
A-41

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute-settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2009–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS350 United States B Continued 

Existence and Application 

 of Zeroing Methodology 

European 

Communities 

EC requests consultations (10/02/06). 

EC expands its request for consultations (10/09/06). 

Japan (10/10/06), Thailand (10/12/06), Brazil, and India 

(10/13/06) request to join consultations. U.S. accepts their 

requests. 

EC requests establishment of a panel (05/10/07). 

Panel established (06/04/07). 

Panel report circulated (10/01/08). 

EC (11/06/08) and U.S. (11/18/08) notify DSB of decision to 

appeal. 

Appellate Body report circulated (02/04/09). 

Appellate Body report adopted (02/19/09). 

DS362 China B Measures 

Affecting the Protection 

and Enforcement of 

Intellectual Property Rights 

United States U.S. requests consultations with China (04/10/07). Japan 

(04/20/07), EC, Canada (04/25/07), and Mexico (04/26/07) 

request to join consultations. China accepts their requests.

U.S. requests establishment of panel (08/13/07). 

Panel established (09/25/07). 

Panel Chair informs DSB that the panel expects to issue its 

report in November 2008 (07/16/08). 

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 of time for China to implement the 

DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 12 months from 

the adoption of the report (06/29/09). 

DS363 China B 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). 

EC requests to join the consultation (04/25/07). China 

accepts the request. 

U.S. requests establishment of a panel (10/10/07). 

Panel established (11/27/07). 

Panel Chair informs DSB that the panel expects to issue its 

report in February 2009 (09/22/08). 

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). 

DS379 United States B Definitive 

Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on 

Certain Products from 

China 

China China requests consultations with U.S. (09/19/08). 

China requests establishment of a panel (12/09/08). 

Panel established (01/20/09). 

China requests the Director-General to determine the 

composition of the panel (12/23/09). 

Director-General composes the panel (03/04/09). 

The Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that it would 

not be possible to complete its work within 6 months 

(11/17/09). 

DS381 United States B Measures 

Concerning the 

Importation, Marketing and 

Sale of Tuna and Tuna 

Products 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations with U.S. (10/24/08). 

EC (11/06/08) and Australia (11/07/08) request to join 

consultations. 

Mexico requests establishment of a panel (03/09/09). 

Panel established (04/20/09). 

Mexico requests the Director-General to determine the 

composition of the panel (12/02/09). 

Director-General composes the panel (12/14/09). 
A-42

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute-settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2009–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS382 United States B 

Anti-Dumping 

Administrative Reviews 

and Other Measures 

Related to Imports of 

Certain Orange Juice from 

Brazil 

Brazil Brazil requests consultations with U.S. (11/27/08). 

Japan requests to join consultations (12/10/08). 

Brazil requests establishment of a panel (09/25/09). 

Panel established (09/25/09). 

DS383 United States B 

Anti-Dumping Measures on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand 

Thailand Thailand requests consultations with U.S. (11/26/08). 

Thailand requests establishment of a panel (03/09/09). 

Panel established (03/20/09). 

Panel report circulated (01/22/10). 

DS384 United States B Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

(Cool) Requirements 

Canada Canada requests consultations with U.S. (12/01/08). 

Mexico and Nicaragua request to join consultations 

(12/12/08); U.S. accepts requests. 

Canada requests further consultations (05/07/09); Mexico 

(05/15/09) and Peru (05/22/09) request to join the further 

consultations; U.S. accepts requests. 

Canada requests establishment of a panel (10/07/09). 

Single panel established pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU 

to examine this dispute and DS386 (11/19/09). 

DS386 United States B Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

Requirements 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations with U.S. (12/17/08). 

Canada (12/30/08) and Peru (05/22/09) request to join 

consultations; U.S. accepts requests. 

Mexico requests establishment of a panel (10/09/09). 

Single panel established pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU 

to examine this dispute and DS384 (11/19/09). 

DS387 China - Grants, Loans and 

other Incentives 

United States U.S. requests consultations with China (12/19/08). 

Canada, EC, Mexico, Turkey (01/15/09); Australia, 

Colombia (01/16/09); and Ecuador, Guatemala, New 

Zealand (01/19/09) request to join consultations. 

U.S. and China announced agreement (12/18/09). 

DS389 European Communities - 

Certain Measures Affecting 

Poultry Meat and Poultry 

Meat Products from the 

United States 

United States U.S. requests consultations with EC (01/16/09). 

Panel established (11/19/09). 

DS392 United States - Certain 

Measures Affecting 

Imports of Poultry from 

China 

China China requests consultations with U.S. (04/17/09). 

China requests establishment of a panel (06/23/09). 

Panel established (07/31/09). 

China requests the Director-General to compose the panel 

(09/16/09). 

Director-General composes the panel (09/23/09). 

DS394 China - Measures Related 

to the Exportation of 

Various Raw Materials 

United States U.S. requests consultations with China (06/23/09). 

EC (07/02/09), Canada, Mexico and Turkey (07/06/09) 

request to join the consultations; China accepts requests.

U.S. requests establishment of a panel (11/04/09). 

DSB establishes panel (12/21/09). 
A-43

TABLE A.19 WTO dispute-settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2009–Continued

Case No. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS399 United States - Measures 

Affecting Imports of Certain 

Passenger Vehicle and 

Light Truck Tyres from 

China 

China China requests consultations with U.S. (09/14/09). 

China requests establishment of a panel (12/09/09). 

Panel established (01/19/10). 

DS402 United States - Use of 

Zeroing in Anti-Dumping 

Measures Involving Products 

from Korea 

Korea Korea requests consultations with U.S. (11/24/09). 

Japan requests to join consultations (12/03/09). 

Source: WTO, “Chronological List of Disputes Cases,” http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm.

Note: With a few exceptions, this list includes cases in which formal action occurred in 2009; where appropriate, pre-2009 

and post-2009 actions are noted to place the 2008 actions in context. 
A-44

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, "Status Report NAFTA & FTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings," http://www.nafta-secalena.org/en/StatusReport.aspx. 

Note: This list includes only cases in which formal action occurred in 2009; pending cases in which little or no formal 

action occurred are omitted. 

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

and Commerce, developments in 2009

File No. Dispute Action (month/day/year) 

USA-MEX-2007-1904-01 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils (Commerce Final Affirmative 

Antidumping Determination). 

Request for panel review (01/22/07). 

Oral argument (09/10/09). 

USA-CDA-2009-1904-01 Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

(Commerce Final Affirmative 

Antidumping Determination). 

 

Request for panel review (01/16/09). 

USA-MEX-2009-1904-02 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils (Commerce Final Affirmative 

Antidumping Determination). 

Request for panel review (03/11/09). 
A-45

TABLE A.21 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union,a by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 

SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 2009

% chan

2008

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 6,153 6,756 5,204 –21 Beverages and tobacco 1,571 1,541 1,314 –12 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 10,813 12,100 6,918 –43 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 5,950 14,269 11,041 –24 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 265 320 215 –35 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 47,832 53,888 50,045 –

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 15,105 15,909 10,773 –37 Machinery and transport equipment 97,462 101,086 75,341 –2

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 29,188 31,671 27,384 –19 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 11,912 13,657 14,158  Total 226,252 251,196 202,392 –1

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 5,141 5,274 4,874 –1 Beverages and tobacco 10,087 9,746 8,597 –12 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 3,031 3,133 2,020 –33 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 24,655 30,404 15,900 –44 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 897 1,001 826 –15 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 78,065 84,498 77,821 –

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 38,271 37,219 23,667 –37 Machinery and transport equipment 132,475 132,024 92,638 –2

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 42,020 41,564 33,160 –29 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 17,546 18,803 18,600 – Total 352,189 363,667 278,104 –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, 2007–09 

Schedule B subheading Description 2007 20

Millions o

8800.00b Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 7,893 9,6

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 4,937 6,42710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 2,809 9,

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 4,235 5,29018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 2,888 3,2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 1,897 3,5

8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), 

cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 2,370 4,7

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 5,957 5,4

3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 2,124 2,2

3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 1,082 1,29018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 1,362 1,7

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by hand, framed or not framed 1,818 2,5

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 2,597 2,5

8411.99 Gas turbines parts, n.e.s.o.i. 1,624 2,0

9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus n.e.s.o.i., and parts 1,258 1,49021.90 Appliances n.e.s.o.i., worn, carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or 

disability; parts and accessories thereof 1,340 1,2

2933.39 Heterocyclic compounds containing an unfused pyridine ring, whether or not hydrogenated, in 

the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 1,433 9

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 6,573 6,7

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 944 1,38802.30 Airplanes and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 kg 3,152 2,8

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 2,137 1,8

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 724 99021.39 Artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 642 98703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 772 1,2

 Total of items shown 62,567 79,2

 All other 163,684 171,9 Total of all commodities 226,252 251,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 incl

a Includes 27 EU countries. b Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the air

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." 

c Not applicable. 
A-47

TABLE A.23 Leading U.S. imports from the European Union,a by HTS subheading, 2007–09 

HTS subheading Description 2007 20

Millions of $ 

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 20,600 21,7

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products 16,215 19,6

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 18,320 16,0

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 14,437 13,1

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic 

compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 7,912 9,6

2933.99 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only, n.e.s.o.i. 5,102 4,9

8411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 5,643 6,12710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 5,688 7,3

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 3,101 3,5

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 3,597 2,9

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 3,129 3,3

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by hand, framed or not framed 4,883 4,0

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 3,133 3,33002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 1,448 2,08411.12 Turbojets of a thrust exceeding 25 kN 2,278 2,33004.39 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing hormones or derivatives/steroids used 

primarily as hormones, but not containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 2,160 2,3

2204.21 Wine n.e.s.o.i. of fresh grapes or fortified wine, in containers not over 2 liters 2,473 2,53004.31 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing insulin but not containing antibiotics 1,184 1,3

9021.39 Artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 1,361 2,3

3302.10 Mixtures of odoriferous substances and mixtures with a basis of these substances, used in 

the food or drink industries 1,964 2,0

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 1,786 2,1

2933.59 Heterocyclic compounds containing a pyrimidine (hydrogenated or not) or piperazine ring 

in the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 912 9

2203.00 Beer made from malt 1,631 1,63004.40 Medicaments, in measured doses, containing alkaloids or derivatives thereof but not 

containing hormones and similar steriods or antibiotics 861 1,2

8502.31 Electric generating sets, wind-powered 1,732 1,9 Total of items shown 131,548 138,8

 All other 220,641 224,8 Total of all commodities 352,189 363,6Source: 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 incl

a Includes 27 EU countries. 
A-48

TABLE A.24 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 12,567 14,386 1 Beverages and tobacco 786 970 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 6,772 7,760 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 9,933 15,830 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 424 549 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 23,579 25,111 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 30,630 32,597 7 Machinery and transport equipment 99,532 95,191 

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 19,980 21,086 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 8,916 8,945  Total 213,119 222,424 

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 15,151 16,803 1 Beverages and tobacco 812 815 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 12,612 12,432 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 78,179 111,266 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 785 1,545 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 24,320 27,149 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 47,905 46,585 7 Machinery and transport equipment 99,697 85,135 

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 15,881 14,657 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 17,164 18,452  Total 312,505 334,840 

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, 2007–09 Schedule B subheading Description 2007 2

Millions 

8800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 8704.31 Motor vehicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engine, gross 

vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 5,695 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 6,820 6,

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 7,024 6,

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 5,091 4,

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 2,628 3,2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent 

by weight of such products, not light 2,480 4,

8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 4,731 3,

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 1,551 1,

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 993 2,8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,997 2,7112.91 Gold waste and scrap, including metal clad with gold but excluding sweepings containing other 

precious metals 1,245 1,

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,552 1,

8523.40 Optical media 1,025 1,

8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,550 1,4901.99 Printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, other than in single sheets 959 

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 969 4902.90 Newspapers, etc. appearing less than 4 times per week 1,000 4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and racing 

cars 724 

2106.90 Food preparations, other than protein concentates and textured protein substances, n.e.s.o.i. 685 

8708.30 Brakes and servo-brakes for motor vehicles, and parts thereof 1,134 

7606.12 Rectangular plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick, of aluminum alloy 1,299 1,

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 739 1,

3402.20 Washing or cleaning preparations, other than soap, containing aromatic or modified aromatic 

surface-active agent, for retail sale 604 

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 1,101 1, Total of items shown 55,597 56,

 All other 157,522 166, Total of all commodities 213,119 222,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 incl

a Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the air

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 
A-50

TABLE A.26 Leading U.S. imports from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 HTS subheading Description 2007 2

Millions 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 37,929 628703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 30,312 25

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous state 22,370 268703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 6,429 6

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent 

by weight of such products, not light 6,265 7

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 4,831 5

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 3,651 3

7601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 2,686 38802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 2,334 24802.61 Uncoated paper/paperboard for writing/printing/other graphic purposes n.e.s.o.i., over 10 percent 

fiber by mechanical process, in rolls 2,393 2

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 2,074 22716.00 Electrical energy 2,713 34407.10 Coniferous wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, of thickness exceeding 6mm 4,860 3

3104.20 Medicaments, for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, in measured doses, containing antibiotics other 

than penicillins 1,542 3

8407.34 Reciprocating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 2,905 22711.12 Propane, liquefied 1,916 28708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,346 2

4801.00 Newsprint, in rolls or sheets 2,345 28708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,197 2

7601.20 Unwrought aluminum alloys 2,717 2

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous wood 1,925 1

3901.90 Polymers of ethylene n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 1,325 1

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 366 10102.90 Bovine animals, live, n.e.s.o.i. 1,419 1

7403.11 Refined copper, cathodes and sections of cathodes 1,681 1

 Total of items shown 153,529 179

 All other 158,975 155 Total of all commodities 312,505 334Source: 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 incl
A-51

TABLE A.27 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 2009

% cha

200

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 1,934 2,313 2,446 1 Beverages and tobacco 91 142 158 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 16,419 20,008 20,917 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 291 401 524 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 168 164 70 –5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 8,303 9,136 9,908 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,959 4,833 3,981 –7 Machinery and transport equipment 25,574 25,298 22,162 –

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 3,718 4,200 4,368 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 555 671 590 – Total 61,013 67,166 65,124 

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 4,196 4,796 4,143 –1 Beverages and tobacco 43 40 33 –2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,578 1,760 1,224 –3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 641 2,023 303 –4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 34 47 48 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 7,245 10,734 8,519 –

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 40,196 43,644 31,967 –7 Machinery and transport equipment 148,085 151,524 139,029 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 117,102 118,770 106,528 –9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 3,966 4,166 3,751 – Total 323,085 337,504 295,545 –

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, 2007–09Schedule B subheading Description 2007 20

Millions of 

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 4,117 7,38800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 2,294 3,47204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 469 7

7404.00 Copper waste and scrap 1,786 1,77602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 1,590 1,75201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 1,454 1,60207.14 Chicken cuts and edible offal, including livers, frozen 549 67204.29 Waste and scrap, of non–stainless alloy steel 785 63901.20 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms 121 24707.90 Recovered waste and scrap paper or paperboard, n.e.s.o.i., including unsorted such waste 

and scrap 600 6

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or 

paperboard 410 5

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 699 62804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 345 48703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark–ignition internal–combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 159 3

4101.50 Whole raw bovine or equine hides and skins, weight exceeding 16 kilograms, fresh, pickled or 

preserved but not tanned or further prepared 632 6

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 1,086 74703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous wood 316 3

3902.10 Polypropylene, in primary forms 339 28703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark–ignition internal–combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 353 3

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 254 45502.00 Artificial filament tow 208 28517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 366 4

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 209 22603.00 Copper ores and concentrates 424 4 Total of items shown 19,568 25,1

 All other 41,446 42,0 Total of all commodities 61,013 67,1Source: 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 incl

a Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10–digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to the ai

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 
A-53

TABLE A.29 Leading U.S. imports from China, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 HTS subheading Description 2007 

Million

8471.30 Portable digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at least a CPU, 

keyboard and display 17,002 1

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 14,029 19503.00 Tricycles, scooters, similar wheeled toys; dolls, doll's carriages, and other toys; puzzles; reduced scale 

models 9,239 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 9,713 9504.10 Video games used with television receiver and parts and accessories 7,318 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 4,386 

8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 3,897 

6403.99 Footwear not covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber or plastics or composition leather and 

uppers of leather 5,540 

8528.51 Monitors, other than cathode-ray tube, designed for use with automatic data processing machines 5,239 

8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 3,975 6402.99 Footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics n.e.s.o.i. 2,973 

8528.59 Monitors, other than cathode-ray tube, not designed for use with automatic data processing machines 2,947 

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 3,226 

8443.31 Machines that perform two or more of the functions of printing, copying, facsimile transmission, able to 

connect to a computer or network 2,510 

9504.90 Game machines except coin-operated; board games; mah-jongg; dominoes; dice 2,530 

6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 1,758 

8504.40 Static converters 2,663 8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 2,697 8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units 3,571 

8521.90 Video recording or reproducing apparatus, whether or not including a video tuner, other than magnetic 

tape-type 2,526 

4202.92 Trunks, cases, bags and similar containers, with outer surface of plastic sheeting or of textile materials 2,252 

9403.60 Wooden furniture, other than of a kind used in the bedroom 2,790 6204.62 Women's or girls' trousers, etc., of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 1,160 

6403.91 Footwear covering the ankles, with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics, excluding waterproof 

footwear 1,555 

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 1,362 

 Total of items shown 116,858 12

 All other 206,227 21 Total of all commodities 323,085 33Source: 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 incl
A-54

TABLE A.30 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 2009

% cha

2008

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 9,169 11,285 9,240 –1 Beverages and tobacco 191 237 281 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 4,771 6,721 4,491 –

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 6,753 11,082 7,668 –4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 598 868 639 –5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 16,705 18,464 16,546 –

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 18,767 19,640 15,637 –7 Machinery and transport equipment 46,959 47,709 37,863 –8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 10,562 10,271 9,310 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 4,906 5,229 4,042 – Total 119,381 131,507 105,718 –

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 8,518 9,240 9,800 1 Beverages and tobacco 2,530 2,464 2,357 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,293 1,589 967 –3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 33,530 42,646 24,196 –4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 68 87 50 –5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,801 3,937 3,397 –

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 15,948 15,909 11,509 –7 Machinery and transport equipment 113,988 110,794 95,220 –8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 22,071 20,711 18,275 –9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 8,413 8,952 10,539  Total 210,159 216,328 176,309 –

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, 2007–09 Schedule B subheading Description 2007 

Mill

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 2,879 

2710.19 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 2,427 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,744 1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 1,507 1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 1,170 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,759 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,778 8800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 

3926.90 Articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914, n.e.s.o.i. 1,521 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 1,507 

8538.90 Parts for electrical apparatus for electrical circuits; for electrical control n.e.s.o.i. 1,439 2902.43 Para-xylene 726 8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 725 7326.90 Articles of iron or steel n.e.s.o.i. 1,043 8408.20 Compression-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,726 8529.90 Parts, except antennas, for transmission, radar, radio, television, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 1,054 8536.90 Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 988 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 276 

9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 552 

3901.20 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms 612 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,605 

0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 683 7606.12 Rectangular plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick, of aluminum alloy 632 8544.49 Insulated electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 80 volts, not fitted with connectors, 

n.e.s.o.i. 957 

4819.10 Cartons, boxes and cases corrugated paper and paperboard 614  Total of items shown 30,925 

 All other 88,456  Total of all commodities 119,381 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 o

a Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to t

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 
A-56

TABLE A.32 Leading U.S. imports from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 HTS subheading Description 2007 

Mill

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 29,848 8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 14,149 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 10,110 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 2,611 8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 3,881 

8704.31 Motor vehicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engine, 

gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 5,059 

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 561 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching/routing apparatus 2,573 

8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets of a kind used in vehicles, aircraft or ships 4,475 9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 1,834 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products, not light 1,445 

8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 352 9401.90 Parts of seats (except medical, barbers, dentist, etc.) 3,341 8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 2,121 8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 3,574 

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors 1,904 8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, other components incorporating apparatus for control or distribution of 

electricity, for voltage not exceeding 1,000 volts 1,976 

2203.00 Beer made from malt 1,593 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,462 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,120 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 3,283 

0702.00 Tomatoes, fresh or chilled 960 8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,720 

7106.91 Silver, other than powder, unwrought 1,184 6203.42 Men's or boys' trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts not knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton 1,213 

 Total of items shown 104,348 

 All other 105,811  Total of all commodities 210,159 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 in
A-57

TABLE A.33 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 2009

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 9,063 11,905 10,123 1 Beverages and tobacco 1,045 847 606 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 4,234 4,820 2,962 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 534 1,319 876 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 78 77 69 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 9,217 10,299 8,390 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,682 3,412 2,330 7 Machinery and transport equipment 20,609 19,378 13,632 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 8,338 8,010 6,847 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,295 1,370 1,240  Total 58,096 61,435 47,074 

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 483 546 558 1 Beverages and tobacco 53 65 64 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 595 626 421 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,176 575 274 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 27 39 31 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 8,368 8,532 7,739 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 8,385 8,596 6,617 7 Machinery and transport equipment 110,265 105,462 69,062 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 11,227 10,916 8,116 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 4,348 3,755 3,120  Total 144,928 139,112 96,002 

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 specifie
A-58

TABLE A.34 Leading U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 Schedule B subheading Description 2007 

Million

8800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 2,620 3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, 

n.e.s.o.i. 839 

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 1,100 1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 702 0203.19 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i, fresh or chilled 518 

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 2,056 2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 805 9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 682 

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 799 

0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 404 

3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 497 9018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories 

thereof 442 

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 372 

1006.30 Rice, semi-milled or wholly milled, whether or not polished or glazed 145 

2402.20 Cigarettes containing tobacco 759 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching/routing apparatus 345 

2309.10 Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale 226 8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic 

integrated circuits 1,240 

4403.20 Coniferous wood in the rough, not treated 401 9021.39 Artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 246 2004.10 Potatoes, including french fries, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or 

acetic acid, frozen 215 

4811.51 Bleached paper and paperboard, coated/impregnated/covered with plastics, weighing 

over 150 grams per square meter, in rolls or sheets 224 

2711.11 Natural gas, liquefied 94 

9306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, etc., and parts 275  Total of items shown 16,006 

 All other 42,089  Total of all commodities 58,096 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 o

a Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to t

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 
A-59

TABLE A.35 Leading U.S. imports from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 HTS subheading Description 2007 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 17,262 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity over 3,000 cc 21,030 

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 4,202 

8703.22 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine over 1,000 

but over 1,500 cc 6,024 

8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders 3,450 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 1,836 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,035 

3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 1,118 

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,837 8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated circuits 1,450 2933.79 Lactams, excluding 6-hexanelactam, clobazam, and methyprylon 659 8411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 893 4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and racing cars 753 8409.91 Parts for spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 1,171 3818.00 Chemical elements doped for use in electronics, in the form of discs, wafers, similar forms; chemical 

compounds doped for use in electronics 1,063 

9504.90 Game machines except coin-operated; board games; mah-jongg; dominoes; dice 596 8502.31 Electric generating sets, wind-powered 307 9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus n.e.s.o.i., and parts 642 8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 890 

8523.29 Magnetic media, other than cards incorporating a magnetic stripe 836 

8471.30 Portable digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at least a CPU, 

keyboard and display 974 

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 650 8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 742 8711.50 Motorcycles and cycles, with an auxiliary motor, with a reciprocating internal combustion piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 800 cc 909 

9002.11 Objective lenses and parts and accessories thereof for cameras, projectors or photographic enlargers or 

reducers 529 

 Total of items shown 72,861 

 All other 72,067  Total of all commodities 144,928 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 o
A-60

TABLE A.36 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 2009

% 

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 2,987 4,915 3,331 1 Beverages and tobacco 76 61 49 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 3,002 3,518 2,929 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 779 1,104 1,169 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 101 141 98 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 5,252 4,902 4,376 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,480 1,705 1,408 7 Machinery and transport equipment 14,692 12,600 10,463 

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 4,112 3,564 2,665 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 532 564 586  Total 33,012 33,074 27,074  Imports: 0 Food and live animals 261 279 290 1 Beverages and tobacco 69 74 76 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 314 459 234 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 2,332 1,497 1,101 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1 1 2 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,919 2,239 1,583 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 5,508 6,201 4,035 7 Machinery and transport equipment 31,534 32,206 28,718 

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,520 2,678 1,944 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 911 1,053 785  Total 45,368 46,687 38,770 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, 2007–09 Schedule B subheading Description 2007 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereofa 0 8541.29 Transistors, other than photosensitive, with a dissipation rate greater than or equal to 1 Watt 623 

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 829 7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 292 8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 984 

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 179 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 663 

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 143 8486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of semiconductors, flat 

panels, or electronic integrated circuits 319 

2926.10 Acrylonitrile 500 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 883 2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar products with 

predominate aromatic constituent 191 

1201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 158 

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 325 2707.30 Xylenes 229 8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 683 8431.39 Parts for lifting, handling, loading, or unloading machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 18 3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 83 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent by 

weight of such products, not light 232 

7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 383 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 10 2608.00 Zinc ores and concentrates 218 8411.91 Parts for turbojets or turbopropellers 334 2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in U-235; plutonium and its compounds 201 9001.90 Lenses, except contact and spectacle, prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, unmounted, other 

than of glass not optically worked 293 

 Total of items shown 8,775 

 All other 24,237  Total of all commodities 33,012 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 

a Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to t

these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 
A-62

TABLE A.38 Leading U.S. imports from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 HTS subheading Description 2007 8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 6,179 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 6,363 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 2,074 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder 

capacity over 3,000 cc 2,424 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 753 

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 1,093 2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent by 

weight of such products, not light 1,821 

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors 444 8450.20 Household- or laundry-type washing machines, with a dry linen capacity exceeding 10 kilograms 406 4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and racing cars 533 8451.29 Drying machines for textile yarns, fabrics, or made up textile articles, with a dry linen capacity 

exceeding 10 kilograms 297 

8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 246 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 602 8504.23 Liquid dielectric transformers having a power handling capacity exceeding 10,000 kva 227 8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 517 2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent 

by weight of such products 427 

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 247 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 219 

2902.20 Benzene 457 8523.51 Solid state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 62 8517.69 Other apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, n.e.s.o.i. 105 

8528.51 Monitors, other than cathode-ray tube, designed for use with automatic data processing machines 220 8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units 242 7308.20 Towers and lattice masts of iron or steel 79 4011.20 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or trucks 238  Total of items shown 26,272 

 All other 19,096  Total of all commodities 45,368 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 o
A-63

TABLE A.39 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 200

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 1,951 2,122 2,011 Beverages and tobacco 49 47 42 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,449 3,059 2,043 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 96 269 114 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 18 29 25 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,685 3,675 2,796 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,210 1,412 857 Machinery and transport equipment 12,056 10,814 6,858 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,548 1,712 1,619 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 479 488 35 Total 24,541 23,628 16,71 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 259 304 271 Beverages and tobacco 10 10 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 296 321 193 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 642 279 154 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 7 9 15 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,072 1,250 95

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 6,198 5,988 3,807 Machinery and transport equipment 22,200 21,400 17,728 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 5,906 5,326 4,139 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,463 1,316 82 Total 38,052 36,204 28,07

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 specifie
A-64

TABLE A.40 Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 Schedule B subheading Description 2008486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 2,49

8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 1,028542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 1,521005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed 751201.00 Soybeans, whether or not broken 718800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 328542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 969031.41 Optical instruments for inspecting semiconductor wafers or devices, or photomasks or reticles used in 

manufacturing these items 49

8486.90 Parts and accessories of machines and apparatus used in the manufacture of semiconductors, flat 

panels, or electronic integrated circuits 35

1001.90 Wheat and meslin, excluding durum wheat 287204.21 Waste and scrap, of stainless steel 28

8475.90 Parts of machines for assembling electric/electronic lamps, tubes or flashbulbs, in glass envelopes, 

for manufacturing or hot working glass 7

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 389001.90 Lenses, except contact and spectacle, prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, unmounted, other 

than of glass not optically worked 21

8543.90 Parts for electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 173824.90 Other chemical products and preparations of the chemical and allied industries, n.e.s.o.i. 87106.10 Silver powder 62804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon 92106.90 Food preparations, other than protein concentates and textured protein substances, n.e.s.o.i. 8

9030.82 Other instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking semiconductor wafers or devices 285201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 147602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 213004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 78486.30 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of flat panel displays 3 Total of items shown 11,13

 All other 13,40 Total of all commodities 24,54Source: 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 o

a Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to t

data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 
A-65

TABLE A.41 Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 HTS subheading Description 8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 8526.91 Radio navigational aid apparatus 8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 

8542.31 Electronic integrated circuits, processors or controllers 8542.32 Electronic integrated circuits, memories 8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 8523.40 Optical media 8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 

8512.20 Electrical lighting or visual signaling equipment, for use on cycles or motor vehicles, except for use on 

bicycles 

8712.00 Bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorized 7318.15 Threaded screws and bolts, of iron or steel, n.e.s.o.i., whether or not with their nuts or washers 

8523.51 Solid state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 7318.14 Self-tapping screws of iron or steel 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 

8534.00 Printed circuits 8504.40 Static converters 8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, n.e.s.o.i. 9506.91 Gymnasium, playground or other exercise articles and equipment; parts and accessories thereof 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 8471.80 Other units of automated data processing machines 9403.20 Metal furniture, other than of a kind used in offices 8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras, and video camera recorders  Total of items shown 1

 All other 2 Total of all commodities 3Source: 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 specifie
A-66

TABLE A.42 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 

SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 200

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 268 533 241 Beverages and tobacco 10 8 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 533 592 463 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 982 2,235 1,894 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 15 19 15 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 5,398 6,909 5,426 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,106 1,758 1,187 Machinery and transport equipment 11,346 14,566 10,80

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,569 1,841 1,589 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 458 567 52 Total 21,684 29,027 22,13

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 2,257 2,185 1,981 Beverages and tobacco 298 318 322 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,952 2,217 1,26

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 3,970 8,411 6,184 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 29 32 25 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,691 1,990 1,456 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 6,503 6,395 3,267 Machinery and transport equipment 6,186 6,573 3,24

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,581 1,187 939 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 551 753 93 Total 25,018 30,061 19,61

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 specifie
A-67

TABLE A.43 Leading U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 Schedule B subheading Description 2007 

Millions 

8800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 574 

2710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 percent by 

weight of such products, not light 144 

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 885 3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measure doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 362 2815.12 Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), in aqueous solution (soda lye or liquid soda) 160 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, 

including switching/routing apparatus 156 

8431.39 Parts for lifting, handling, loading, or unloading machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 47 

2930.90 Organo-sulfur compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 88 

8431.49 Parts and attachments for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders, and other grading, 

scraping machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 175 

3105.40 Ammonium dihydrogenorthophosphate (monoammonium phosphate), mixtures thereof with 

diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 0 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 313 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automated data processing machines and units 281 8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 49 9018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, n.e.s.o.i. 105 

3104.20 Medicaments, for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, in measured doses, containing antibiotics other 

than penicillins 0 

8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units 125 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. 41 

3808.93 Herbicides, anti-sprouting products, and plant-growth regulators 101 4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous wood 99 

2902.50 Styrene (vinylbenzene; phenylethylene) 205 3907.20 Polyethers, other than polyacetals, in primary forms 108 3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 108 3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 36 2713.12 Petroleum coke, calcined 89  Total of items shown 4,249 

 All other 17,435 2 Total of all commodities 21,684 2Source: 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 i

data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 
A-68

TABLE A.44 Leading U.S. imports from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 HTS subheading Description 2007 20

Millions of $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 2,682 6,52710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

minimum 70 percent by weight of such products, not light 720 9

0901.11 Coffee, not roasted, not decaffeinated 609 74703.29 Chemical woodpulp, soda, or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached 

or bleached, nonconiferous 656 8

7201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5 percent or less phosphorus by weight, in primary 

forms 1,118 1,9

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 1,357 1,92401.20 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped 274 26802.93 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of granite 475 48802.30 Airplanes and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 kg 297 2

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 206 38412.90 Parts for engines and motors, n.e.s.o.i. 53 41602.50 Other prepared or preserved meat, meat offal, or blood, of bovine animals, 

n.e.s.o.i. 322 2

6403.99 Footwear not covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber or plastics or 

composition leather and uppers of leather 486 3

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, including station 

wagons and racing cars 209 2

8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines 358 32902.20 Benzene 300 2

2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent or 

higher 389 4

2711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, other than natural gas, in a 

gaseous state 110 1

8414.30 Compressors of a kind used in refrigerating equipment, including air conditioning 260 17601.20 Unwrought aluminum alloys 221 20801.32 Cashew nuts, fresh or dried, shelled 142 14802.56 Paper/paperboard for writing/printing/graphic purposes, weighing 40-150 grams 

per square meter, not over 10% fiber by mechanical process 94 1

2902.43 Para-xylene 30 14409.10 Wood, including strips and friezes, continuously shaped along any of its edges or 

faces, coniferous 220 1

9302.00 Revolvers and pistols, designed to fire live round cartridges 70  Total of items shown 11,655 17,7

 All other 13,362 12,2 Total of all commodities 25,018 30,0Source: 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 specifie
A-69

TABLE A.45 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2007–09 SITC Code No. Description 2007 2008 2009

Millions of $ 

 Exports: 0 Food and live animals 333 335 403 1 Beverages and tobacco 4 4 3 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 909 975 1,045 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 397 881 959 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 15 4 123 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,233 4,790 3,182 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,315 2,173 1,201 7 Machinery and transport equipment 9,231 6,123 5,636 

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,220 1,210 1,117 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 653 847 961  Total 16,309 17,340 14,629 

 Imports: 0 Food and live animals 905 1,024 917 1 Beverages and tobacco 21 33 37 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 358 535 380 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 769 337 435 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 58 103 57 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,755 3,892 3,647 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 8,830 10,026 7,300 7 Machinery and transport equipment 3,049 3,633 2,819 

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 6,776 5,946 5,334 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 337 336 301  Total 23,857 25,866 21,228 

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 specifie
A-70

TABLE A.46 Leading U.S. exports to India, by Schedule B subheading, 2007–09 

Schedule B subheading Description 2007 200

Millions o

8800.00a Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 0 3105.30 Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) (c) 2,66

7108.12 Nonmonetary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 373 497102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 502 1,21

2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar 

products with predominate aromatic constituent 191 36

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 91 367204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 145 248517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion, transmission or regeneration of voice, images 

or other data, including switching/routing apparatus 191 22

8411.82 Gas turbines, except turbojets and turbopropellers, of a power not exceeding 5,000 

kW 24 3

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 193 180802.11 Almonds, fresh or dried, in shell 125 141507.10 Soybean oil and fractions, crude, whether or not degummed 0 

3815.19 Supported catalysts, n.e.s.o.i. 85 105201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 79 108411.99 Gas turbines parts, n.e.s.o.i. 44 57225.11 Flat-rolled silicon electrical steel, 600 millimeters or more wide, grain-oriented 39 72809.20 Phosphoric acid and polyphosphoric acids (c) 22

3904.10 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 2 4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or 

paperboard 90 9

8523.40 Optical media 163 72710.19 Oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 

70 percent by weight of such products, not light 53 6

7113.19 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal (excluding silver) 61 118471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49 129 109018.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, 

n.e.s.o.i. 70 6

8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use (d) 

 Total of items shown 2,652 7,02

 All other 13,656 10,31 Total of all commodities 16,309 17,34Source: 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 o

a Beginning in January 2009, the Census Bureau suppressed certain 10-digit Schedule B commodity classifications related to 

reported these data in aggregate under HTS Schedule B code 8800.00.0000, "Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts." b Not applicable. 

c Exports aggregated with other fertilizer products under 3100.00.0000 to prevent disclosure of individual firm data. d U.S. value is less than $500,000.
A-71

TABLE A.47 Leading U.S. imports from India, by HTS subheading, 2007–09 

HTS subheading Description 2007 

Mi

7102.39 Nonindustrial diamonds, n.e.s.o.i. 3,686 3004.90 Certain medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale, n.e.s.o.i. 498 

7113.19 Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal (excluding silver) 2,201 

7305.11 Line pipe for oil or gas pipelines, external diameter over 406.4 millimeters, of iron or steel, 

longitudinally submerged arc welded 153 

6302.31 Bed linen, other than printed, of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 298 

6302.60 Toilet and kitchen linen, of terry toweling or similar terry fabrics, of cotton 389 6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton 346 

2710.11 Light oils and preparations from petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, minimum 70 

percent by weight of such products 35 

6206.30 Women's or girls' blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses, of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 300 

8502.31 Electric generating sets, wind-powered 253 8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 110 3004.20 Lead oxides, n.e.s.o.i. 201 

6204.62 Women's or girls' trousers, etc., of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 227 7113.11 Jewelry and parts thereof, of silver, whether or not plated or clad with other precious metal 113 

6105.10 Men's or boys' shirts, of cotton, knitted or crocheted 297 

6205.20 Men's or boys' shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 221 0801.32 Cashew nuts, fresh or dried, shelled 197 2933.59 Heterocyclic compounds containing a pyrimidine (hydrogenated or not) or piperazine ring in the 

structure, n.e.s.o.i. 37 

6109.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops, and similar garments, of cotton, knitted or crocheted 183 6204.42 Women's or girls' dresses of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 138 6203.42 Men's or boys' trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts not knitted or crocheted, of 

cotton 226 

0306.13 Shrimps and prawns, including in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, frozen 174 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 152 8504.40 Static converters 185 8412.90 Parts for engines and motors, n.e.s.o.i. 21  Total of items shown 10,641 

 All other 13,216  Total of all commodities 23,857 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 o