OPERATION OF THE TRADE

	



	

	



 






THE YEAR IN TRADE:

AGREEMENTS PROGRAM

DURING 1996
Marcia E. Miller, Chairman

Lynn M. Bragg, Vice Chairman

Don E. Newquist

Carol T. Crawford

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

COMMISSIONERS

U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Acting Director, Office of Economics

www.usitc.gov
This report was principally prepared by

Country and Regional Analysis Division

Arona Butcher, Chief

 Paul R. Gibson, Project Leader

James Stamps, Deputy Project Leader

Kim S. Frankena Diane Manifold

Joanne Guth Walker Pollard

Thomas Jennings Edward C. Wilson

Magdolna Kornis S. Michael Youssef

Office of the General Counsel

William W. Gearhart

Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements

Terry O’Brien

Office of Unfair Import Investigations

Jeffrey Whieldon

Office of Investigations 

Debra Baker

Betsy Haines

Office of Industries

Jackie Jones

Marie Wold

With the assistance of

Dean Moore, Information Specialist

Amy Cozamanis, Intern

April Keaton, Intern

Supporting assistance was provided by:

Patricia Thomas, Secretarial Services

v

CONTENTS



Chapter 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose and organization of the report 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Summary of 1996 trade agreements activities 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The World Trade Organization 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

NAFTA and other regional trade agreements 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Bilateral trade relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trade sanctions activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The international economic environment and world trade in 1996 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

International economic environment 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. balance of payments position 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. trade in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

World trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2. Trade Activities in the WTO and the OECD in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Singapore ministerial conference 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The World Trade Organization 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

General Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Multilateral Trade Agreements 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Council for Trade in Goods 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Council for Trade in Services 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Plurilateral trade agreements 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The WTO Ministerial Conference 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Singapore Ministerial declaration 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Uruguay Round Implementation 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The “Built-In” agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Agriculture and IPR 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tariff Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Information Technology Agreement 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Outcome at Singapore 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ITA timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Least-Developed Countries 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New issues for WTO consideration 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Core Labor Standards 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Regionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Competition Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Transparency in government procurement 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

WTO Committee Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
vi

CONTENTS—Continued



Chapter 2. Trade Activities in the WTO and the OECD in 1996—continued

General Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Membership and Accessions 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Dispute Settlement Body 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Reformulated Gasoline Panel and Appeal 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Alcoholic Beverage Taxes Panel and Appeal 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Underwear Panel and Appeal 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Desiccated Coconut Panel and Appeal 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Active Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Operation of the DSB 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trade Policy Review Body 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Council on Trade in Goods 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Market Access 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Agriculture 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Textiles Monitoring Body 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Antidumping Practices 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Customs Valuation 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Rules of Origin 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Import Licensing 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Committee on Safeguards 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Preshipment Inspection Entity 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Working Party on State Trading Enterprises 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Working Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Council on Trade in Services 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Financial services negotiations 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Movement of natural persons negotiations 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Telecommunications services negotiations 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Objectives of the negotiations 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Summary of commitments on basic telecommunications 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Conclusion of the negotiations 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Maritime transport services negotiations 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Professional services discussions 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Council on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sound recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Plurilateral agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Agreement on Government Procurement 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

International Dairy Agreement 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

International Bovine Meat Agreement 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New Trade Agenda Issues 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trade and environment 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
vii

CONTENTS—Continued



Chapter 2. Trade Activities in the WTO and the OECD in 1996—continued

Trade and investment 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Multilateral agreement on investment negotiations 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trade and Competition 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trade and Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 3. Regional Trade Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

NAFTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

NAFTA Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Bilateral trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Production sharing 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Canadian-Mexican trade 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

NAFTA Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Tariffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Customs, rules of origin, and marking rules 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Customs administration 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Rules of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Marking rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Government procurement 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Investment and services 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trucking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Investment and non-financial services 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Financial services 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Professional services 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Telecommunications 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Acceptance of test data 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New regulations on telecom attachment equipment 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Intellectual property 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

NAFTA dispute settlement 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trilateral panel reviews of AD/CVD Determinations 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

General dispute settlement 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Panel reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Pre-panel consultations 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Private commercial disputes 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Advisory committee on private commercial disputes 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Advisory committee on private commercial disputes for agricultural goods 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

NAFTA and environmental cooperation 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Commission for environmental cooperation 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cooperative projects 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Study of NAFTA’s impact on environment 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fact-finding investigations launched upon complaint 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

NADBank and BECC 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
viii

CONTENTS—Continued



Chapter 3. Regional Trade Activities—continued

NAFTA and labor cooperation 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

WTO review of NAFTA 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

NAFTA accession and bilateral FTAs 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Free Trade Area of the Americas 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

APEC’s work program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Institutional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Manila Action Plan for APEC 1996 (MAPA) 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chapter 4. U.S. Relations with Major Trading Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Dairy and poultry dispute 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Uruguay Round provisions on agriculture 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Duty elimination under CFTA/NAFTA 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S.-Canadian Softwood Lumber Agreement 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wool Suits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

New Transatlantic Agenda 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Transatlantic Business Dialogue 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mutual Recognition Agreements 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Customs Cooperation 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Meat Hormone Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Bananas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Semiconductors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Autos and parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Supercomputers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Airport transport services 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Air cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Passenger service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Yellowfin tuna embargo 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Avocados . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Intellectual property rights protection and enforcement 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

MFN status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Illegal transshipments of textiles and apparel 109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

WTO accession negotiations 109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Market access agreement 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Protection of intellectual property rights 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Medical devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

WTO accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
ix

CONTENTS—Continued



Chapter 4. U.S. Relations with Major Trading Partners—continued

Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Financial sector liberalization 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Automobiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Shelf-life agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Import clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Korea’s new economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Government procurement 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chapter 5. Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Import relief laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Safeguard actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Adjustment assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Assistance to workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

NAFTA-related assistance to workers 130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Assistance to firms and industries 131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Laws against unfair trade practices 131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Section 301 investigations 131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Antidumping investigations 131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Countervailing-duty investigations 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Reviews of outstanding antidumping and countervailing-duty orders 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Section 337 investigations 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other import administration laws and programs 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tariff preference programs 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Generalized System of Preferences 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Andean Trade Preference Act 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

National security import restrictions 146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Agricultural Adjustment Act 146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. textile and apparel trade program 146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. actions in 1996 147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other trade agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

NAFTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

U.S. trade in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

New rules of origin for textiles and apparel 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chapter 6. Major U.S. Trade Sanctions Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) 157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Libertad (Helms-Burton) Act 160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Libya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
x

CONTENTS—Continued



Chapter 6. Major U.S. Trade Sanctions Activities—Continued

Other Trade Sanctions Activity 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sea turtle conservation: shrimp 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Marine mammal protection: yellowfin tuna 164 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Figures

1-1. Selected trade agreements activities, 1996 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1-2. U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by product sectors, 1996 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1-3. U.S. merchandise exports, imports, and trade balance (customs value basis) with major

trading partners, 1996 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-1. WTO Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2-2. Agenda of the Singapore WTO ministerial 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-3. Origins of the Information Technology Agreement 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3-1. U.S. trade with Canada: exports, imports, and trade balance, 1991-96 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3-2. U.S. trade with Canada: exports, by product sectors, 1996 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3-3. U.S. trade with Mexico: exports, imports, and trade balance, 1991-96 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3-4. U.S. trade with Mexico: exports, by product sectors, 1996 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3-5. Canada-Mexico, merchandise trade, 1994-96 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5-1. U.S. imports of textiles and apparel covered by the MFA, by major suppliers, 1991

and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Tables

1-1. Comparative economic indicators of the United States and specified major trading partners,

1995-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1-2. U.S. trade and current account balances, 1995-96 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-1. Highlights of the WTO’s Built-in Agenda 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-2. WTO members (128 as of December 13, 1996) 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-3. Countries seeking membership through WTO Working Parties on accession (33 as of 27

December 13, 1996) 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-4. Regional trade agreements notified for WTO examination 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-5. Members of WTO Plurilateral Agreements 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-6. OECD Members (as of December 12, 1996) 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3-1 . U.S. trade with NAFTA partners, 1994-96 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3-2. U.S.-Mexican production sharing trade, 1990-96 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5-1. Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5-2. U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries and the world, 1996 144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5-3. U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP from leading beneficiaries, and total, 1996 144 . . . . . . . . . 

5-4. U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 1994-96 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5-5 . U.S. imports for consumption from Andean countries, 1994-96 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5-6. Countries with which the United States has textile and apparel quotas, as of February 1,

1997, and U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from these countries in 1996 148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Appendix

Statistical tables

A-1. U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC Nos. (revision 3), 1994-96 172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-2. Leading exports to Canada, by Schedule B number, 1994-96 173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
xi

CONTENTS—Continued



Appendix—Continued

Statistical tables—Continued

A-3. Leading imports from Canada, by HTS items, 1994-96 174 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-4. U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union, by SITC Nos. (revision 3), 1994-96 175 . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-5. Leading exports to the European Union, by Schedule B number, 1994-96 176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-6. Leading imports from the European Union, by HTS items, 1994-96 177 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-7. U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC Nos. (revision 3), 1994-96 178 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-8. Leading exports to Japan, by Schedule B number, 1994-96 179 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-9. Leading imports from Japan, by HTS items, 1994-96 180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-10. U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC Nos. (revision 3), 1994-96 181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-11. Leading exports to Mexico, by Schedule B number, 1994-96 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-12. Leading imports from Mexico, by HTS items, 1994-96 183 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-13. U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC Nos. (revision 3), 1994-96 184 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-14. Leading exports to China, by Schedule B number, 1994-96 185 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-15. Leading imports from China, by HTS items, 1994-96 186 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-16. U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC Nos. (revision 3), 1994-96 187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-17. Leading exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B number, 1994-96 188 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-18. Leading imports from Taiwan, by HTS items, 1994-96 189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-19. U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC Nos. (revision 3), 1994-96 190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-20. Leading exports to Korea, by Schedule B number, 1994-96 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-21. Leading imports from Korea, by HTS items, 1994-96 192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-22 Antidumping cases active in 1996, filed under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act

of 1930, by final outcomes and by USITC investigation number 193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-23. Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996 195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-24. Countervailing cases active in 1996, filed under authority of section 303 or title VII of

the Tariff Act of 1930, by final outcomes and by USITC investigation number 202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-25. Countervailing-duty orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-26. Section 337 investigations completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during

1996 and those pending on Dec. 31, 1996 205 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-27. Outstanding sec. 337 exclusion orders as of Dec. 31, 1996 207 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-28. U.S. imports for consumption of leading GSP-duty-free imports, 1996 210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-29. U.S. imports for consumption and imports eligible for GSP treatment, by import

categories under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), 1996 211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-30. U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under CBERA, 1994-96 212 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-31. U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by country, 1992-96 213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-32. U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by country, 1994-96 214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A-33. U.S. imports for consumption of leading imports under ATPA, 1994-1996 215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
xii

List of Frequently Used Abbreviations

and Acronyms

ACP African, Caribbean, and Pacific

AD Antidumping

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ATC Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

ATPA Andean Trade Preference Act

CBERA Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act

CFTA United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement

CVD Countervailing Duty

EU European Union

FTA Free-Trade Agreement

FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas

FY Fiscal Year

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GSP Generalized System of Preferences

HTS Harmonized Tariff System

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

ITA Information Technology Agreement

LTFV Less Than Fair Value

MFA Multifiber Arrangement

MFN Most Favored Nation

NAFTA North American Free-Trade Agreement

NTM Nontariff Measure

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OFAC Office of Foreign Assets Control

SITC Standard International Trade Classification

SMC Singapore Ministerial Conference

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance

TRIMs Trade-Related Investment Measures

TRIPs Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

URA Uruguay Round Agreements

URAA Uruguay Round Agreements Act

USITA International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

USITC U.S. International Trade Commission

USTR United States Trade Representative

WTO World Trade Organization
1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Purpose and Organization

of the Report

This report is the 48th in a series submitted to the

U.S. Congress under section 163(b) of the Trade Act of

1974 and its predecessor legislation.1 It is one of the

principal means by which the U.S. International Trade

Commission (USITC or the Commission) provides

Congress with factual information on trade policy and

its administration. The report also serves as a

historical record of the major trade-related activities of

the United States to be used as a general reference by

Government officials and others with an interest in

U.S. trade relations. 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.2 Regional

or other trade agreements activities without U.S.

participation are not covered in this report.

Summary of 1996 Trade

Agreements Activities

The World Trade Organization

This section summarizes major 1996 trade events

(figure 1-1) described in this report. The World Trade

Organization (WTO) completed its second full year of

operation in 1996. During December 9-13, 1996, the

organization held a Ministerial Conference in

Singapore at which members reviewed the work of the

WTO and made progress on several long-term

initiatives. Agreement was reached to eliminate tariffs

on trade in certain information technology products by

the year 2001. At the conference, the WTO started an

initiative that could lead to an agreement on

transparency practices as part of an effort to fight

corruption in government procurement. The

ministerial declaration renewed commitments by

members to observe internationally recognized

Figure 1-1

Selected trade agreements activities, 1996

JANUARY

Jan. 16 United States partially suspends economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

(Serbia and Montenegro).

Jan. 22 The United States and South Korea finalize an agreement reached in July 1995 on the liberalization of

shelf-life rules on 207 food products including meat products, bottled, packaged and dried foods, 

butter, cheeses, and baby foods and formulas.

FEBRUARY

Feb. 21 The United States appeals WTO dispute settlement panel decision that U.S. gasoline regulations

violate international trade rules and do not qualify for exception under WTO natural resource

conservation measures.

Feb. 28 The United States identifies six major drug-producing and transit countries not meeting the goals

and objectives of the 1988 U.N. Convention on Drug Trafficking.

MARCH

Mar. 11 USTR initiates section 301 investigation of Canadian practices affecting periodicals.

Mar. 12 President Clinton signs into law the Libertad (Helms-Burton) Act extending U.S. economic sanctions 

against Cuba.

Table continued on next page
2

Figure 1-1—Continued

Selected trade agreements activities, 1996

MAY

May 7 Hungary accedes to the OECD.

May 8 On request of the United States and four Latin American countries, the WTO establishes a dispute

settlement panel to examine the EU banana import regime.

May 20 WTO establishes dispute settlement panel to investigate U.S. complaint against the EU meat

hormone ban.

May 29 United States and Canada conclude 5-year agreement on U.S. imports of softwood lumber from

Canada.

May 31 The United States files WTO complaint against Korea’s testing and inspection procedures for

imported fruit and vegetables.

JUNE

June 4 The United States rejects maritime liberalization package offered by 24 members of the WTO at the 

senior officials meeting in Geneva.

June 17 The United States and China reach agreement on protection of intellectual property rights in China

thereby averting U.S. sanctions against China.

June 28 WTO talks on liberalizing maritime services are suspended until 2000.

JULY

July 2 USITC makes an affirmative injury determination in investigations involving imports of broomcorn

brooms conducted under the U.S. global and NAFTA bilateral safeguard laws, but reaches a

negative injury determination in an investigation involving imports of fresh tomatoes and bell

peppers conducted under the U.S. global safeguard law.

July 16 President Clinton suspends for 6 months the right to file claims under title III of the Helms-Burton Act.

July 22 The United States and the EU sign agreement compensating the United States for EU enlargement.

July 26 After an annual review of bilateral telecommunications agreements, the United States designates

Korea as a “Priority Foreign Country” because of Korea’s telecommunications procurement practices.

July 30 United States and Taiwan reach agreement on telecommunications market access in Taiwan.

AUGUST

Aug. 2 United States and Japan agree on framework for monitoring and bilateral consultations on

semiconductor market access in Japan.

Aug. 5 President Clinton signs into law the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996.

Aug. 20 President Clinton signs legislation that extends retroactively the U.S. Generalized System of

Preferences program from July 31, 1995 to May 31, 1997.

SEPTEMBER

Sept. 6 The United States applies triple charges against China for transshipment of textile exports to the

United States.

Sept. 11 USITC makes an affirmative determination in its preliminary antidumping investigation on imports of

vector supercomputers from Japan.

Sept. 18-19 United States and Japan hold bilateral consultations on implementation of the U.S.-Japan Automotive

agreement.

Sept. 20 The United States announces intention to request WTO dispute settlement panel to investigate

“systemic structural” barriers in Japan’s market for photographic film.

OCTOBER

Oct. 1 The United States announces intention to request WTO dispute settlement panel if Korea does not

implement the agreement on shelf-life for imported meats finalized in January 1996.

Oct. 1 The United States announces agreement with Taiwan on market access for medical devices.

Oct. 28 The United States and Mexico sign a 5-year suspension agreement that establishes a minimum price

for U.S. sales of fresh tomatoes imported from Mexico after Commerce makes a preliminary

affirmative determination of LTFV imports in an antidumping investigation involving fresh tomatoes

from Mexico.

Table continued on next page
3

Figure 1-1—Continued

Selected trade agreements activities, 1996

NOVEMBER

Nov. 8-9 The United States and European Union hold Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue meetings. Agreement

reached on customs cooperation and progress made on concluding a Mutual Recognition Agreement

covering pharmaceuticals.

Nov. 20 In response to a request by the EU, the WTO establishes a dispute settlement panel to examine the

Helms-Burton Act.

Nov. 22 Poland accedes to the OECD.

Nov. 20-23 APEC ministerial held in Manila.

Nov. 28 President issues proclamation temporarily raising duties on imports of broomcorn brooms under U.S.

global safeguard law.

Nov. 12 After completion of “out-of-cycle review” of protection of IPR in Taiwan, the United States removes

Taiwan from designation under the Special 301.

DECEMBER

Dec. 2 NAFTA dispute settlement panel rules against U.S. complaint on Canadian agriculture tariffs.

Dec. 3 The United States and Venezuela agree to a 15-month phase-out of U.S. regulations on reformulated

gasoline.

Dec. 9-13 The WTO holds first biennial ministerial conference in Singapore.

Dec. 12 Korea accedes to the OECD.

Dec. 15 United States and Japan reach agreement on access to Japan’s insurance market.

Source: Compiled by the staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission.

core labor standards, developed an action plan for

least-developed countries, urged conclusion of ongoing

negotiations to liberalize telecommunications and

financial services activities, and agreed to meet time

frames for future negotiations on agricultural market

access. The Singapore Ministerial conference is

summarized in chapter 2.

Major work of the WTO in 1996 centered on

organizational work of committees, notifications by

members, new accessions, and dispute settlement.

Many committees observed that notifications by

members, which are essential for assessing compliance

with WTO obligations, continued to lag. During the

year, 16 countries acceded to the organization and

another 33 pursued membership at various stages of

the accession process. WTO membership reached 128

by yearend. The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism

was particularly active. Over 60 requests for

consultations have been made to the dispute settlement

body since its inception in January 1995, with seven

disputes under consideration by panels and four final

panel results under review by the WTO Appellate

Body. Developments in the WTO are summarized in

chapter 2.

NAFTA and other Regional

Trade Agreements

NAFTA completed its third full year of operation

in 1996. Major issues involving NAFTA partners

included U.S. restrictions on the operation of Mexican

trucking firms in border states, Canadian tariffs on

agricultural products, and U.S. imports of wool suits

from Canada. NAFTA groups on environmental and

labor aspects of the agreement held consultations

regarding the effect of NAFTA on environmental

protection and on labor markets. Impediments in

Mexico to imports of telecommunications equipment

were the subject of two bilateral disputes in 1996. In

April, the United States said that Mexico was not in

compliance with NAFTA obligations to accept test data

on telecommunications equipment. Negotiations

occurred, but by yearend Mexico had not implemented

the agreed plan of action for resolving the U.S.

complaint. In addition, a bilateral dispute over

Mexico’s proposed product standards for telecommunications equipment was not resolved by yearend.

In the APEC forum, members focused on

developing individual and collective initiatives to
4

fulfill commitments made in 1995 in the Osaka Action

Agenda. These action plans include trade and

investment liberalization, trade and investment

facilitation, and economic and technical cooperation.

At their ministerial meeting during November 20-23,

1996, APEC members agreed on the Manila Action

Plan for APEC, which integrated ongoing initiatives

into one package. For a discussion of U.S.

developments in NAFTA, APEC, and other regional

trade agreements in 1996, see chapter 3.

Bilateral Trade Relations

Disputes over bilateral trade issues in 1996 covered

a wide variety of topics. A disagreement with Canada

over interpretation of WTO and NAFTA obligations on

agricultural trade measures was resolved on December

2, 1996. At issue was whether Canada should apply

tariffs on certain agricultural imports, as part of its

WTO obligations to convert nontariff measures in

agriculture to tariffs, or eliminate those new tariffs

pursuant to commitments under NAFTA by the United

States and Canada to remove tariffs on bilateral trade.

A NAFTA dispute settlement panel ruled against the

U.S. complaint. On May 29, 1996, the United States

and Canada concluded an agreement that set terms for

Canadian exports of softwood lumber to the United

States.

U.S.-EU bilateral trade relations largely took place

in the context of the New Trans-Atlantic Agenda.

Progress was made on mutual recognition agreements,

customs cooperation, and the information technology

agreement. Bilateral disputes continued over the EU

hormone ban and the EU banana import regime.

The ongoing U.S. embargo on imports of tuna from

Mexico continued to be a source of bilateral discussion

in 1996. A bilateral effort to bring Mexico’s tuna

fishing practices into conformity with the “dolphin

safe” provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

failed to resolve the dispute. On another issue, on

April 1, 1996, U.S. tomato growers filed a petition

with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC

alleging that a domestic industry is materially injured

or threatened with material injury by reason of less

than fair value (LTFV) imports of fresh tomatoes from

Mexico. On October 28, 1996, following preliminary

affirmative determinations of material injury by the

Commission and LTFV imports by Commerce, the

United States and Mexico signed a 5-year suspension

agreement to establish reference prices for most tomato

imports from Mexico, and the antidumping

investigation was suspended.

Bilateral negotiations with Japan, China, Taiwan,

and Korea concentrated on preserving or expanding

market access on a wide range of products and

services. In Japan, talks centered on U.S. access to

Japan’s market for semiconductors, autos and parts,

insurance, film, paper, and services. In the case of

supercomputers, the United States expressed concern

about whether Japan was implementing

market-opening aspects of the bilateral supercomputer

agreement. In addition, a proposed purchase of a

supercomputer from Japan by the National Science

Foundation resulted in the initiation of a U.S.

antidumping investigation of vector supercomputers.

On June 17, 1996, the United States and China reached

agreement on enforcement of IPR protection in China.

China agreed to close 15 factories producing pirated

CDs and take several other steps to boost enforcement

of IPR. On September 6, 1996, the United States

imposed sanctions against China for illegal

transshipment of textiles and apparel products from

China to the United States. The dispute was resolved

in early 1997 when both sides renewed their bilateral

textile agreement. On October 1, 1996, the United

States and Taiwan reached agreement to preserve

market access for U.S. medical devices in Taiwan. A

dispute with Korea over its procurement practices for

telecommunications equipment led the United States

on July 26, 1996 to identify Korea as a “priority

foreign country” pursuant to section 1374 of the

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. By

yearend, the two sides had not reached agreement over

the dispute, which could result in U.S. sanctions

against Korea. Disputes with Korea over automobile

market access, shelf-life standards for imported meats,

and import clearance of fruits continued in 1996.

China and Taiwan continued to pursue membership

in the WTO. The United States continued to insist

that China accede to the WTO on “commercially

viable” terms, in particular by conforming its trade

regime to WTO obligations. WTO accession talks

with Taiwan included U.S. requests for market access

for automobiles, agriculture, tobacco, and alcoholic

beverages. Bilateral trade relations with major U.S.

trading partners in 1996 are discussed in chapter 4.

Administration of U.S. Trade

Laws and Regulations

Administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations

in 1996 are summarized in chapter 5. Developments in

U.S. trade programs during the year included:

 The United States conducted investigations

under its global and NAFTA bilateral safeguard
5

laws in 1996. In investigations of broomcorn

broom imports, jointly conducted under both

safeguard laws, the Commission made

affirmative injury determinations on July 2,

1996. On the same day, in an investigation

under its global safeguard law with regard to

imports of fresh tomatoes and bell peppers, the

Commission made a negative injury

determination.

 Under the U.S. NAFTA-related trade adjustment assistance program, Department of Labor

expenditures for FY 1996 reached $157.3

million, up slightly from 1995.

 Following final affirmative determinations by

the Commission and the Department of Commerce, eight new antidumping and two new

countervailing duty orders were issued in 1996.

Under section 337, the Commission issued one

general exclusion order following completion

of an investigation, and three temporary limited

exclusion orders.

 The United States Trade Representative

(USTR) initiated nine section 301 investigations in 1996. These included investigations

of Canadian practices affecting periodicals and

practices affecting the automobile sector in

Brazil and Indonesia.

 After a lapse of more than one year, the U.S.

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)

program was extended retroactively in August

1996. In addition to extending the program to

May 31, 1997, the legislation also amended the

statute that authorizes the program in several

respects, including the criteria used to

determine the threshold for mandatory

graduation of a country from the program.

 U.S. trade agreements activity in the textiles and

apparel sector included U.S. implementation of

new rules of origin for imports of textiles and

apparel, as required by the Uruguay Round. In

early 1997, the United States reached a new

market access agreement with China, the largest

supplier of U.S. imports of textiles and apparel

products.

Trade Sanctions Activities

On March 12, 1996, the Cuban Liberty and

Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 was

signed into law. The law, also known as the

Helms-Burton Act, was at the center of disputes with

several U.S. trading partners during the year. The

Libertad Act creates a private right of action in U.S.

courts for U.S. nationals whose property was

confiscated by the Cuban Government to sue Cuban

governmental or foreign investors who profit from use

of those properties. Several U.S. trading partners

objected to the extraterritorial scope of the Act, noting

that its provisions apply to an individual or company,

regardless of nationality or country of residence.

Canada and the EU, as well as Cuba, enacted

legislation to block enforcement of the Libertad Act.

The EU, after a series of consultations with the United

States, formally requested establishment of a WTO

dispute settlement panel to examine the Libertad Act.

On November 20, 1996, the WTO Dispute Settlement

Body agreed to establish the panel, whose members

were named in January 1997. However, on April 11,

1997, the United States and the EU reached a

settlement under which both sides agreed to work

cooperatively to develop, by October 1997, binding

disciplines on dealings in property confiscated in Cuba.

As part of this settlement, the EU suspended the WTO

panel—but retained the right to reinstate it.

The United States took a number of other actions

in 1996 relating to trade and economic sanctions. On

January 16, 1996, a portion of economic and trade

sanctions against certain areas of the former

Yugoslavia were lifted. An exception to sanctions on

trade with Iraq came into force on December 10, 1996.

The exception allows limited petroleum imports from

Iraq and export of certain humanitarian items to that

country. Actions were taken to reinforce economic

sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya. For a

discussion of the Helms-Burton Act and other major

U.S. trade sanctions activity in 1996, see chapter 6.

The International Economic

Environment and World

Trade in 1996

International Economic

Environment

World economic growth strengthened slightly in

1996. World real output is estimated to have grown by

3.8 percent in 1996 compared with 3.5 percent in

1995.3 In the United States, Canada, and the EU

inflation remained relatively low and stable albeit

moderate rates of economic expansion largely

prevailed. Table 1-1 shows economic indicators of the

United States and selected U.S. trading partners.
c indicators of the United States and specified major trading partners, 1995-96

Government Merchandse Current

Real GDP1 Inflation1 Unemployment2 budget balance3 trade balance account balance3

1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996

Percent change from

previous period

Percent Percent Billion dollars Percent

2.0 2.4 2.4 2.1 5.6 5.4 -2.0 -1.6 -173.4 -187.2 -2.0 -2.1 

 . . . 

2.3 1.5 1.6 1.4 9.5 9.6 -4.1 -2.7 22.3 28.8 -1.5 0 

 . . . 

0.9 3.6 -0.5 0 3.2 3.3 -3.3 -4.1 131.2 86.8 2.2 1.4 

 . . . 

1.9 1.1 1.9 1.7 9.4 10.3 -3.5 -4.1 70.3 73.5 0.7 0.7 

 . . . 

2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 8.2 7.6 -5.7 -4.8 -18.3 -21.2 -0.4 -0.1 

 . . . 

2.2 1.3 1.6 1.8 11.7 12.4 -4.8 -4.1 10.8 18.9 1.1 1.3 

 . . . 

3.0 0.8 5.7 4.2 12.0 12.2 -7.1 -6.7 44.0 60.2 2.5 3.5 

 . . . 

2.5 1.6 3.0 2.6 11.2 11.4 -5.2 -4.6 136.8 165.9 0.7 1.0 

 . . . 

-6.9 4.0 39.1 35.0 6.3 6.0 n/a n/a 7.1 7.4 -0.2 0 

 . . . 

2.0 2.4 5.1 4.4 7.8 7.8 -3.5 -3.3 111.6 83.6 0 -0.1 

 . . . 

10.2 9.5 14.8 6.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3 -1.2 

 . . . 

5.9 5.6 3.7 3.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 13.6 12.9 1.9 1.8 

 . . . 

9.0 6.6 4.5 5.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a -4.7 -12.0 -2.5 -4.4 

 . . . 

4.6 4.5 8.7 6.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a -19.7 -20.9 -2.3 -2.4 

 . . . 

8.8 6.5 1.8 1.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.9 -2.0 15.2 13.3 

 . . . 

8.6 7.3 5.8 5.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a -10.1 -13.0 -8.2 -8.4 

 . . . 

9.5 8.2 3.4 3.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3 1.8 -8.0 -7.5 

 . . . 

deflators percent change from previous year.

r force.

s a percent of GDP.

d by the OECD.

Outlook, 60, December 1996.
7

In the United States, real output grew by an

estimated 2.4 percent in 1996,4 faster than the 2.0

percent growth rate realized in 1995. The growth was

attributed to increased consumer spending in the first

half of the year, rising investment spending,

particularly on computers and information-processing

machines, and both relatively lower long-term interest

rates and subdued inflation. Inflation registered 2.1

percent.5 Fixed investment was boosted by a

moderation in unit labor costs based on a surge in labor

productivity.6 The Federal budget deficit was estimated

by the Congressional Budget Office to have declined to

$116 billion in 1996 from $164 billion in 1995.7

In major U.S. trade partners, output generally grew

slower than in the United States. In Canada, economic

growth slowed to 1.5 percent in 1996 compared to 2.3

percent in 1995. In the EU, with the exception of the

United Kingdom, output growth was weak with

relatively high unemployment. A slowdown in

domestic and public investment spending weakened

economic growth in several member countries.

Monetary stability has been achieved although at lower

levels of domestic growth. In 1996, foreign exchange

rates returned to levels consistent with balanced growth

following the market turbulence during the spring of

1995. In Japan, the economy recovered moderately,

boosted by a rise in domestic demand largely induced

by intensive public sector investment and expanding

housing construction.8

Growth in developing and emerging economies in

1996 was mixed. In Latin America (including Mexico

and the countries of the Caribbean, Central America,

and South America), aggregate GDP grew in 1996 by

2.7 percent. In the Pacific Rim, economic activity

continued to expand in 1996, particularly in China,

Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand.

U.S. Balance of Payments Position

The U.S. current account deficit grew to about

$165.1 billion in 1996 (see table 1-2). The deficits on

the merchandise trade and investment income were

partially offset by an increase in the surplus on

services. The U.S. deficit on income from foreign

investment grew in 1996 as payments on foreign assets

in the United States increased to about $205.3 billion,

whereas receipts from U.S. assets abroad increased to

about $196.6 billion. Net inflows of foreign capital

into the United States increased in 1996 to $218.3

billion. Both U.S. purchases of foreign assets and

securities and foreign purchases of U.S. assets and

securities expanded. The surplus on services trade

rose to about $73.5 billion. The U.S. deficit on goods

and services was about $114.2 billion.9

U.S. Trade in 1996

U.S. merchandise exports reached $612 billion in

1996, up from $576 billion in 1995. Imports rose to

$800 billion, up from $749 billion in 1995. The U.S.

merchandise trade deficit with the world rose from

$173 billion in 1995 to $188 billion in 1996. The

majority of U.S. exports consisted of manufactured

goods, which accounted for 68.4 percent of U.S.

Table 1-2

U.S. trade and current account balances, 1995-96

(Billion dollars)

1995 1996

Merchandise exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575.9 611.7

Merchandise imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -749.4 -799.3

Balance on merchandise trade -173.4 -187.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balance on services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.4 73.5

Balance on goods and services -105.1 -114.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balance on investment income -8.0 -8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balance on goods, services, and income -113.1 -122.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unilateral transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -35.1 -42.5

Balance on current account -148.1 -165.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. assets abroad, net, outflow (-) -307.9 -306.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreign assets in the U.S., net, inflow (+) 424.5 525.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net capital inflows (+), outflows (-) 116.6 218.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Income receipts on U.S. assets abroad 182.7 196.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Income payments on foreign assets in the United States -190.7 -205.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Transactions, fourth quarter

and year 1996, BEA 97-06.
8

exports in 1996 (figure 1-2). Chemicals accounted for

10.6 percent of exports, followed by food (9.3 percent),

fuel and raw materials (7.5 percent) and all other goods

(.4.2 percent). The majority of U.S. imports were

manufactured goods (73.9 percent), followed by fuel

and raw materials (12.1 percent), chemicals (5.8

percent), food (4.6 percent), and all other goods (3.6

percent).

Figure 1-3 lists U.S. exports, imports, and trade

balances with major trading partners in 1996. Trade

with NAFTA countries accounted for about 30 percent

of total U.S. imports and exports. Of the $208 billion

trade deficit in 1996, Japan accounted for $51 billion,

followed by China ($39 billion), Canada ($37 billion),

the EU ($22 billion), Mexico ($19 billion), and Taiwan

($13 billion). The United States registered a trade

surplus of $3 billion with Korea in 1996.

U.S. exports and imports with the world grew by

nearly 7 percent in 1996. With the exception of

Mexico, where U.S. exports grew by over 22 percent,

U.S. exports to major trading partners grew relatively

slowly in 1996, and U.S. exports to Taiwan fell by 11

percent. U.S. imports from Mexico grew by 20

percent, and imports from China grew by 12 percent.

U.S. imports from Japan fell by 7 percent while

imports from Korea fell by 8 percent. 

World Trade

The United States ranked as the world’s largest

merchandise exporter in 1996 followed by Germany

and Japan. World trade in goods and services grew at a

faster rate than world output in 1996 according to IMF

forecasts.10 World trade volume is estimated to have

grown by 6.7 percent in 1996, down from the 8.9

percent growth in the previous year. Trade growth in

1996, however, was above the average annual gains of

the previous ten years, and exceeded the 3.8 percent

growth in world output.
9

































































Other

Figure 1-2

U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by product sectors, 1996

U.S. Exports

Note.—Because of rounding figures may not add up to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Manufactures

Food

68.4%)

Chemicals

Other

Food

U.S. Imports

Fuel/raw material

$397.9 ( 7.5%)

$24.2 (

$43.9 (

4.2%)

$61.8 ( 10.6%)

$54.3 ( 9.3%)

Chemicals

$45.6 (5.8%)

Manufactures

$584.0 (73.9%)

$28.8 (3.6%)

$36.6 (4.6%)

Fuel/raw material

$95.4 (12.1%)

(Billion dollars)
10

Figure 1-3

U.S. merchandise exports, imports, and trade balance (customs value basis) with major trading 

partners, 1996















 





  































–400

–200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Canada EU Japan Mexico China Taiwan Korea World

Major trading partners

Billion dollars

Canada $119 $156 $-37

EU 120 141 -22

Japan 64 115 -51

Mexico 55 74 -19

China 12 51 -39

Taiwan 17 30 -13

Korea 25 23 3

World 582 790 -208

Exports Imports Trade balance

Exports

Imports

Trade Balance

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
11

ENDNOTES

1 Section 163(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (Public

Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 1978) 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.”

2 Executive Order No. 11846, Mar. 27, 1975.

3 International Monetary Fund (IMF), World

Economic Outlook, Oct. 1996.

4 According to the Federal Reserve Board

forecast.

5 BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce News,

BEA 96-05, Gross Domestic Product 1996

(Advance), and Federal Reserve Bulletin, Jan. 1997.

6 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

7 Economic Report of the President, February

1997.

8 OECD Economic Outlook, 60, December 1996.

9 BEA, U.S. International Transactions: Fourth

Quarter and Year 1995, Current Account, BEA-96-07.

10 IMF World Economic Outlook, October 1996

and WTO/GATT Press Release, Mar. 22, 1997.
12
13

CHAPTER 2

Trade Activities in the WTO and the

OECD in 1996

Singapore Ministerial

Conference

This chapter reviews activities of the World Trade

Organization (WTO) in 1996. It also describes the

trade-related activities of the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for

that year. The WTO is the principal body for

negotiation, implementation, and dispute settlement of

international trade agreements. WTO activities

reviewed in this chapter include the Singapore

Ministerial Conference (SMC) and regular WTO

committee activity. The SMC, the first biennial

gathering of WTO trade ministers, took stock of

activities of the organization during its first two years

of operation and set an agenda for future WTO work.

Throughout the year, actions by standing WTO

committees concentrated on implementation of WTO

commitments by members as well as organizational

issues. The OECD provides a forum for consultation

and policy coordination on economic and trade issues

of interest to members. In 1996, OECD activities

included discussions on so-called new trade agenda

issues on the links and interaction between trade policy

and a number of areas traditionally considered

domestic policy issues, including environmental

policies, investment, competition policy, and labor.

The World Trade

Organization

The WTO provides a permanent forum for member

governments to address their multilateral trade

relations as well as facilitate the implementation of the

trade agreements negotiated during the Uruguay

Round. Figure 2-1 displays the organizational

structure of the WTO. The following sections describe

1996 activities of the main WTO elements. In

particular, activities of the General Council (including

the Singapore Ministerial Conference, Multilateral

Trade Agreements, and Plurilateral Trade Agreements)

are summarized below.

General Council

The highest authority in the WTO structure is the

Ministerial Conference, which is composed of

representatives of all WTO members and is required to

meet at the Ministerial level at least every two years.

The General Council is the highest authority when a

Ministerial conference is not in session, and thus

directs the daily work of the WTO. The General

Council also convenes in the following forms when

carrying out tasks assigned to those areas—

 Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)

 DSB Appellate Body

 Trade Policy Review Body

The following major committees report directly to

the General Council—

 Committee on Trade and Environment1

 Committee on Trade and Development2

 Committee on Regional Trade Agreements

 Committee on Balance-of-Payments

Restrictions

 Committee on Budget, Finance, and

Administration

 Working Parties on Accession

Multilateral Trade Agreements

Three subsidiary councils covering the WTO

multilateral trade agreements answer to the General

Council—

 Council for Trade in Goods

 Council for Trade in Services

 Council for Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights
14

Figure 2-1

WTO structure

Source: The World Trade Organization.

Ctte on Trade &

Environment

Ctte on Trade

& Development

Sub-Ctte on 

Least-Developed

d Countries

Ctte on Regional

Trade 

Agreements

Ctte on Balanceof-Payments

 Restrictions

Ctte on Budget,

Finance & 

Administration

Working Parties

on Accession

Trade Policy Review Body

Ministerial Conference

General Council Dispute Settlement Body Appellate Body

Council for Trade in Goods

Council for Trade-Related 

Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights

Council for Trade in Services

Dispute Settlement Panels

Ctte on 

Market Access

Ctte on Sanitary & Phytosanitary Measures

Ctte on 

Technical 

Barriers to

Trade

Ctte on AntiDumping 

Practices

Ctte on Rules

of Origin

Ctte on TradeRelated Investment Measures

Working Group

on Notification

Obligations and

Procedures

Ctte on 

Agriculture

Textiles Monitoring

Body

Ctte on Subsidies &

Countervailing

Measures

Ctte on Customs

Valuation

Ctte on 

Import Licensing

Ctte on 

Safeguards

Working Party and

State-Trading

Enterprises

Group on Basic

Telecommunications

Negotiating Group

on Maritime 

Transport Services

Ctte on Trade in 

Financial Services

Working Party on

Professional 

Services

Working Party on

GATS Rules

Ctte on Specific

Commitments

Ctte on 

Trade in 

Civil Aircraft

Ctte on 

Government 

Procurement

International Dairy

Council

International Meat

Council
15

Council for Trade in Goods

The Council for Trade in Goods oversees the

multilateral agreements on trade in goods (found in

Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement3). The following

agreements each have a committee or other body that

answers to the Council for Trade in Goods concerning

its respective agreement—

 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(GATT 1994)4;

 Agreement on Agriculture;

 Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures;

 Agreement on Textiles and Clothing;

 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;

 Agreement on Trade-Related Investment

Measures;

 Agreement on Implementation of Article VI

of the GATT 19945;

 Agreement on Implementation of Article VII

of the GATT 19946;

 Agreement on Preshipment Inspection;

 Agreement on Rules of Origin;

 Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;

 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing

Measures; and

 Agreement on Safeguards

In addition, the following working parties also report

to the Council for Trade in Goods—

 Working Group on Notification Obligations

and Procedures, and

 Working Party on State-Trading Enterprises.

Council for Trade in Services

The Council for Trade in Services oversees the

General Agreement on Trade in Services (or GATS,

found in Annex 1B of the WTO Agreement). A

number of committees, groups, and working parties

report to the Council for Trade in Services concerning

various aspects of services trade and ongoing

negotiations—

 Committee on Trade in Financial Services;

 Committee on Specific Commitments;

 Group on Basic Telecommunications;

 Negotiating Group on Maritime Transport

Services;

 Working Party on Financial Services; and

 Working Party on GATS Rules.

Council for Trade-Related Aspects

of Intellectual Property Rights

The Council for Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Council) oversees

the Agreement by the same name (the so-called TRIPs

Agreement, found in Annex 1C of the WTO

Agreement). Each of the three WTO subsidiary

councils (goods, services, and intellectual property)

may designate additional bodies to help it carry out its

task, although the TRIPS Council at present conducts

business under the TRIPs Agreement without further

breakdown.

Plurilateral Trade Agreements

In addition to committees directing the multilateral

trade agreements, four plurilateral trade agreements

were carried forward into the WTO from the previous

regime under GATT 1947. The following plurilateral

agreements have oversight committees or councils that

are also required to report to the General Council—

 Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft;

 Agreement on Government Procurement;

 International Dairy Agreement; and

 International Bovine Meat Agreement.

The WTO Ministerial

Conference

Introduction

The WTO held its inaugural Ministerial

Conference in Singapore from December 9-13, 1996.

The Conference’s aim was to review the state of the

multilateral trading system and to chart its future

direction. More than 120 current or prospective WTO

members attended the Singapore Ministerial

Conference (SMC). Trade, Foreign, Finance,

Agriculture, and other Ministers participated in the

plenary and various multilateral, plurilateral and

bilateral business sessions.7

Preparatory discussions during 1996 helped narrow

some of the 40 informal proposals about what should

be placed on the Singapore agenda. These proposals

fell largely into five categories—Uruguay Round

implementation, the built-in agenda, additional

liberalization, least developed countries, and new

issues. Figure 2-2 outlines the basic features of these

Ministerial agenda items.
16

Figure 2-2

Agenda of the Singapore Ministerial Conference

Uruguay Round implementation

 Numerous reporting requirements for far-reaching and technically complex disciplines have made it difficult

for many countries to comply both administratively as well as substantively with the up to 22 agreements

that comprise the Uruguay Round Agreements (URA). The ministers’ foremost priority at Singapore was to

review the considerable backlog of notifications and consider what improvements could be made to help

existing URA mechanisms work better to ensure full compliance with current obligations.

Built in agenda

 Services negotiations continued after the Dec. 1993 Uruguay Round conclusion in the areas of financial

services, movement of natural persons, basic telecommunications, and maritime transport, and were

scheduled to conclude respectively by June 1995, June 1995, April 1996, and June 1996. These sectoral

negotiations have been extended for the most part due to inadequate concessions in the

never-before-negotiated area of services. Ministers hoped that the SMC would reinvigorate these talks,

especially those on basic telecommunications rescheduled to conclude in February 1997.

 In addition, the current URA contain provisions that already call for either new negotiations at specified

future dates (agriculture, services by 2000) or for periodic reviews at various times of virtually every major

agreement (e.g. textiles, subsidies, antitdumping, intellectual property, dispute settlement, the U.S. “Jones”

Act) that set in motion implementation discussions that in effect amount to much the same thing.

 The Committee on Trade and Environment, established by the April 1994 Marrakesh Ministerial Conference,

presented its initial findings to the SMC.

Tariff initiatives

 Australia and Canada proposed that the SMC act as catalyst to liberalize market access over and above that

in the existing URA and “built-in” agenda negotiations, both calling formally for new tariff cuts on industrial

products to be put on the WTO agenda.

 The EU and the United States advanced sectoral tariff elimination in pharmaceuticals and information

technology—the latter leading to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) presently set to enter into

force on July 1, 1997 for completion by 2000.

Least developed countries

 Least developed countries (LLDCs) have not integrated themselves into the world economy over the past

decade to the degree that developing countries have. Studies by the World Bank and others have concluded

that some reforms in the URA could result in a worsening of the terms of trade for LLDCs. The WTO

Director-General and several key developed country participants urged that the SMC highlight the plight of

such countries and adopt measures to address this problem.

New issues

 Proposals for launching additional WTO work on “new” issues were put forward by various participants,

with intense discussions of possible new issues for WTO consideration held before the SMC. Mentions of

labor standards, regionalism, competition policy, investment, and government procurement reached the final

declaration, whereas other issues were also discussed such as a review of WTO rules in light of the spread of

regional trading blocs and the increased “globalization” of the world economy.
17

The United States sought commitments to further

liberalize trade in information technology products,

basic telecommunications, and financial services; to

continue agricultural reform; to advance observance of

internationally recognized core labor standards; to

balance trade and environmental concerns; and to

tackle such new topics as transparency in government

procurement.8 Another U.S. objective was that the

meeting set a business-like tone for future Ministerials

and demonstrate the WTO’s credibility as a forum for

meaningful consultation and continuous liberalization.9

According to Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky,

the SMC resulted in some important advances on a

number of U.S. objectives, particularly with respect to

information technology, government procurement,

labor rights, basic telecom, and agriculture.10

In the Singapore Ministerial Declaration, the

SMC’s final outcome, WTO members committed

themselves to an open, rules-based trading system and

to observe internationally recognized core labor

standards. The declaration stressed members’ resolve

to fully implement Uruguay Round rulemaking,

liberalization, and notification commitments as well as

those on settlement of disputes; called for completion

of the so-called built-in agenda of the Uruguay Round,

including outstanding negotiations on basic

telecommunications and financial services; recognizes

efforts to further lower tariffs; and launched

exploration of WTO work into areas of investment,

competition policy, transparency in public

procurement, and trade facilitation.

Ministers from 28 current and prospective WTO

members also issued a Declaration on trade in

information technology products.11 The Declaration,

also known as the Information Technology Agreement

(ITA), had been sought by the United States. The

declaration calls for the elimination of tariffs on certain

information technology products.

The Singapore Ministerial

Declaration

The Ministerial Conference reached consensus on a

Declaration by the concluding session on December

13, 1996. The Singapore Ministerial Declaration,12

which will shape the work of the WTO over the

coming 2 years, covers—

 Trade and economic issues, including the

importance of trade to economic growth,

sustainable growth and development, and

topics of concern to developing and

least-developed countries;

 Multilateral trading issues, including the

challenges posed by growing integration

among national economies, regional trade

agreements, services negotiations, tariff

elimination on information technology and

pharmaceutical products;

 WTO institutional issues, including

implementation, accession, and the

primacy of WTO dispute settlement in the

conduct of trade relations and settlement of

disputes; and

 Other issues, including core labor

standards, textiles and clothing, trade and

the environment, and future work.

Uruguay Round Implementation

Many WTO members, including the United States,

felt strongly that existing provisions such as

implementation and the built-in agenda should be the

principal focus of Ministers’ attention at the SMC.13

While noting the existence of dissatisfaction with

certain aspects at Singapore, Ministers termed overall

progress in implementation “generally satisfactory.”14

Compliance with notification requirements, a critical

part of proper URA implementation, “has not been

fully satisfactory,” the Ministers said. Ministers urged

countries to renew their efforts to become current in

their notification obligations while supporting efforts

by relevant bodies to simplify the notification

process.15

Ministers also recognized the importance of

integrating developing countries into the world trading

system, and the significant new commitments made by

developing countries in the Uruguay Round. They

pledged to improve technical assistance to such

members in making needed legislative changes and

preparing required notifications.16

One major concern to developing countries has

been implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and

Clothing (ATC), which mandates integration of textiles

and apparel trade into multilateral trade rules and

phases out the use of import quotas on textiles and

apparel.17 Exporting countries, represented largely by

the International Textiles and Clothing Bureau (ITCB),

raised a number of concerns that they felt deserved

Ministerial attention. These concerns included
18

complaints about integration programs that have

postponed liberalization of trade in most commercially

meaningful items,18 perceived abuses of the

agreement’s special safeguard measures, changes in

rules of origin by the United States that have

negatively affected their trade, and a lack of

transparency in decisionmaking by the WTO Textiles

Monitoring Body, which oversees the ATC.

Importers said they had fully met agreed

commitments and complained that sufficient account

was not being taken of the gradual liberalization

already taking place via required increases in quota

levels. They had their own implementation concerns,

namely that developing countries had neither taken

steps to improve market access and to maintain fair and

equitable trading for textiles, as called for in Art. 7 of

the ATC, nor had they taken sufficient steps to prevent

quota circumvention. Regarding special safeguards, it

was noted that the United States has only applied one

new measure since mid-1995.19

The Singapore Ministerial Declaration confirms

member commitments to full and faithful

implementation of the ATC, stresses the desirability of

progressive integration of textiles and apparel trade

into multilateral trade rules, states that use of safeguard

measures should be “as sparing as possible,” and notes

concerns raised regarding trade distortive measures and

circumvention.20

The Built-In Agenda

The URA commits WTO members to undertake

additional negotiations and review existing disciplines.

This so-called built-in agenda includes negotiations on

specialized services industries and an examination of

whether and how the trading system can better support

environmental objectives (see table 2-1). At

Singapore, Ministers reviewed the status of recently

launched work on the environment, committed to

conclude ongoing negotiations on services, and agreed

to a program of analysis and information exchange in

advance of scheduled negotiations on agriculture and

other topics.

Environment

In response to growing concern over conflicts

between environmental and trade policy objectives, the

1994 Marrakesh Ministerial directed the WTO to

establish a Committee on Trade and Environment

(CTE)21 to examine the relationship between trade and

environmental measures and to recommend

modifications to the multilateral system that promote

the goal of “sustainable development.”

The CTE reported to Ministers on the status of its

discussions on eight separate work items and made

several recommendations.22 The principal recommendation was that the work of the Committee

continue under its existing terms of reference. The

CTE report also encourages multilateral solutions to

environmental problems of a transboundary or global

nature, notes the benefit of improved coordination

between national trade and environmental policy

makers, encourages continued cooperation between the

WTO Secretariat and the Secretariats of multilateral

environmental agreements (MEAs), and urges

members of MEAs to first seek resolution of any

dispute arising from imposition of a trade measure

pursuant to the MEA under the MEA’s dispute

resolution mechanism.

The United States joined a consensus to adopt the

report and appears to support its caution in certain

areas, such as with respect to whether the WTO should

be formally amended to take into account MEAs.23

The positive elements cited by the United States

included recognition in the report that trade measures

may be needed to achieve environmental objectives,

and that, subject to important conditions, the

exceptions contained in Art. XX of GATT 1994

already allow a WTO member legitimately to place its

public health and safety and national environmental

goals ahead of its general obligation not to raise trade

restrictions or apply discriminatory trade measures.24

While noting the controversial issue of whether all

ecolabeling programs25 are covered by the WTO

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the CTE

stressed the importance of following its procedural

requirements, including those on transparency, and of

ensuring that foreign producers have fair access to

ecolabeling schemes.26 The United States registered

disappointment, however, that “the CTE has not

significantly advanced the understanding of

environmental concerns” and that the Committee was

as yet unwilling “to state that $WTO rules should not

hamper the ability of MEAs to achieve their

environmental objectives.”27

At Singapore, WTO Ministers reviewed the work

and terms of reference of the CTE. The Ministers

agreed that the work of the CTE should continue under

its existing terms of reference, that further work needs

to be undertaken on all items of its work program, and

that they would welcome further participation by

environmental as well as trade experts in the

Committee’s deliberations.28 Although the United

States had proposed to the CTE that WTO Ministers

endorse environmental reviews of trade agreements as
19

Table 2-1: Highlights of the WTO’s Built-in Agenda

Year Subject and Action Item

1996 Net Food Importing Countries: Ministers review the Decision on Measures Concerning

the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Program on Least-Developed Countries at

the Ministerial Conference in Singapore

Environment: Ministers receive report from Committee on Trade and Environment and

decide whether to extend its mandate

1997 Textiles and Clothing: review of the implementation of the agreement

Preshipment Inspection: review of the operation and implementation of the agreement

Basic Telecommunications Services: conclusion of the negotiations on basic

telecommunications by 15 February 1997

Financial Services: negotiations resume in April and conclude on 1 November 1997, at

which time participants in the interim agreement may, for a period of 60 days, modify or

withdraw all or part of their specific commitments and/or list MFN exemptions relating to

financial services

1998 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: review operation and implementation of the

agreement

Technical Barriers to Trade: review operation and implementation of the agreement

Intellectual Property Rights: further negotiations start with a view to broadening and

improving the agreement

1999 Dispute Settlement Understanding: full review of dispute settlement rules and

procedures

Government Procurement: further negotiations start with a view to improving the

agreement and achieving the greatest extension of its coverage among all Parties on the

basis of mutual reciprocity

Investment Measures: review operation of the agreement and discussion on whether

provisions on investment policy and competition policy should be included in the

agreement

2000 Agriculture: negotiations for continuing the process of substantial progessive reductions

in support and protection

2001 Textiles and Clothing: review implementation of the agreement

2004 Textiles and Clothing: review implementation of the agreement

Source: The World Trade Organization.
20

a means of bringing environmental awareness to bear

when negotiating trade agreements,29 the SMC

Declaration was silent on the matter.30

Services

Negotiations are under way to establish general

disciplines and to build upon market access

commitments associated with the General Agreement

on Trade in Services (GATS). Ministers termed the

results of the various services talks thus far as “below

expectations” and stated that, “We are determined to

obtain a progressively higher level of liberalization in

services on a mutually advantageous basis. . . . In this

context, we look forward to full MFN agreements

based on improved market access commitments and

national treatment.”31

They pledged to “achieve a successful conclusion

of the negotiations on basic telecommunications in

February 1997” and “to resume financial services

negotiations in April 1997 with the aim of achieving

significantly improved market access commitments

with a broader level of participation in the agreed time

frame.”32 Ministers added that they would aim at

completing work on accountancy and on new

safeguards disciplines under the GATS by yearend

1997. They looked forward to successfully concluding

negotiations on maritime transport “in the next round

of services liberalization.”33

Agriculture and IPR

Negotiations on broadening and improving the

TRIPs agreement are to begin in 1998. Negotiations

on continuing the process of reducing agricultural

support and protection are to begin in 2000.

Agricultural exporters, led by Argentina, had urged

formal preparatory work for the negotiations, whereas

some importers with heavily protected domestic

markets, such as Japan and Korea, were described as

being reluctant to begin discussing renewed

liberalization. In the Singapore Declaration, the WTO

Ministers agreed to a process of analysis and

information exchange on such built-in agenda issues,

noting that the work undertaken “shall not prejudge the

scope of future negotiations.”34 Acting USTR

Charlene Barshefsky stated that, “Today’s Ministerial

Declaration guarantees that negotiations to continue

the reform process in a number of areas, including

agriculture, will remain consistent with the timetable

agreed to in Marrakesh,” thus offering the United

States an opportunity to address remaining obstacles to

U.S. agricultural exports, particularly import barriers,

state trading, export subsidies, and unjustifiable

sanitary and phyto- sanitary regulations.35

Tariff Initiatives

Introduction

Although fulfilling existing provisions under the

URA was considered of prime importance, a number of

WTO members sought to extend the scope of the

multilateral trade system by reaching agreement on

further liberalization of trade in information

technology, as well as helping to better integrate the

least developed countries into the expanding world

trade system, and introducing “new” issues for

consideration as part of the WTO work program.

The Ministers welcomed two tariff initiatives taken

by a number of present and prospective members.

They noted that in a separate declaration, 28 countries

or customs territories had agreed to eliminate tariffs on

trade in information technology products on an MFN

basis. In addition, the Ministers noted, over 400

products had been added to the previously-agreed

“zero-for-zero” initiative on pharmaceuticals.

Although Canada and Australia had urged that

industrial tariff liberalization be added to the WTO’s

built-in agenda, no mention of such a change was made

in the final declaration.

Information Technology Agreement

Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky singled out the

Information Technology Agreement (ITA) as a top

priority for the United States at the Singapore

Ministerial.36 Worldwide production of information

technology products amounted to nearly $1 trillion in

1995 as trade in such products reached nearly $500

billion,37 a figure that makes information technology

trade comparable to the value of world trade in

agricultural products. Seven countries or regional

economic groups account for the bulk of world

information technology trade, according to the WTO:

Japan, the United States, the EU, Singapore, Korea,

Malaysia, and Taiwan.38 For a discussion of the origins

of the ITA, see figure 2-3.

Outcome at Singapore

Agreement on product coverage and the schedule

for phasing out tariffs remained the major hurdles to

concluding the ITA at Singapore. After intensive

negotiations, on December 12, 1996, the United States

and the EU announced a plan to eliminate tariffs on

ITA products. Specifically, they had established the

list of products to be included in the ITA. Various
21

Figure 2-3

Origins of the Information Technology Agreement

Negotiation of an ITA was formally launched at the U.S.-EU summit in Madrid in December 1995. The

initiative was just one of a large number of economic, political, and security measures announced in the New

Trans-Atlantic Agenda to reinvigorate the trans-Atlantic partnership. Building on the recommendations of the

U.S. and EU business, the two sides committed to seek an agreement eliminating tariffs on information

technology products by the year 2000. The products proposed such an agreement included computer hardware,

semiconductors and integrated circuits, computer software, telecommunications equipment, parts for these

products, and other information technology equipment.

At their April 1996, meeting in Kobe, Japan, trade ministers from the United States, EU, Japan, and

Canada (the so-called Quad countries) endorsed the concept of an ITA and agreed to attempt to complete

negotiations before the December 1996 WTO Ministerial with a view to initiating tariff reductions on ITA

products in 1997. Ministers also agreed that as many countries as possible outside the Quad should participate

in the ITA, particularly APEC members such as Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines,

Singapore, and China. Quad ministers tasked negotiators to work on product coverage.

However, at the same time, progress on the ITA was held up by the EU request for a “balanced” agreement

and by linking negotiations with other nontariff matters. EU concern focused on the possibility that the ITA

would require the EU to grant more significant tariff concessions than the other Quad members. For example,

whereas the United States and Japan agreed in 1985 to apply zero rates on semiconductors, EU tariffs on

semiconductors today range from 0 to 7 percent (the duty on smart cards is 14 percent). As a result, the EU

demanded that the ITA be a “balanced agreement” and grant “mutual benefits” by including tariff cuts in other

sectors. Southern EU-member states in particular withheld support for the ITA unless they would be

compensated for tariff concessions.

EU efforts to link ITA progress to other activities focused on EU participation in the U.S.-Japan

Semiconductor Arrangement. The EU stated that the only acceptable result from the semiconductor

negotiations would be “the establishment of future industry-to-industry and government-to-government

cooperation on a tri- or plurilateral basis from the very start, without any form of conditionality . . . . ” According

to EU officials, EU semiconductor manufacturers strongly supported the linkage so that they could not be

excluded from the benefits of the agreement. The EU also tried to link ITA support with progress on

negotiations to conclude Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) in a number of sectors. Despite these

demands, the United States insisted that the ITA was a separate, simple tariff exercise and concluded a

semiconductor agreement with Japan on August 2.

Following conclusion of the semiconductor arrangement, U.S. and EU officials committed to explore how

the EU could join the semiconductor accord while making a commitment to conclude an ITA. Progress was

difficult, as some EU member states continued to object to the ITA. The United States was determined,

however, not to move forward without EU support. Otherwise, tariff cuts on a most-favored-nation (MFN)

basis under an ITA would permit the EU to be a free rider.

A resolution was finally agreed, which allowed Quad ministers to formally endorse the ITA at their

meeting September 27-28, 1996. The United States and Japan agreed to delay meetings scheduled under the

U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Arrangement until March, 1997, which would permit EU participation after

conclusion of the ITA. Quad ministers pledged to “work together urgently to conclude the ITA by the Singapore

Conference.”

Soon after the Quad meeting, the EU-member states offered their support and granted the EU Commission

a mandate to negotiate the ITA. On November 25, 1996, APEC Leaders called for conclusion at the SMC of an

ITA that would “substantially eliminate” tariffs by the year 2000.
22

products had proved problematic for one side or the

other, and several such products, such as optical fiber

cables, were not included in the final product list.

Moreover, the United States and the EU had yet to

agree upon the staging schedule for eliminating tariffs

on such key products as semiconductors and local area

network equipment.

In return for EU acceptance of the ITA, the United

States tentatively agreed with the EU to eliminate

import tariffs on brown distilled spirits such as cognac

and whiskey by the year 2000 as well as to abolish

tariffs on white spirits, such as gin, as well as liqueurs,

over five years beginning in 1997.39 Details of this

agreement were scheduled be worked out in early

1997. With this tentative bilateral deal, attention

turned to attracting additional signatories to the ITA.

On December 13, 1996, a total of 28 WTO current

or prospective members, representing about 85 percent

of global information technology trade,40 issued a

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information

Technology Products. Among other things, participants

declared their intention to bind and eliminate customs

duties and other duties and charges on specified ITA

products listed in the Annex. The 28 participants were

Australia, Canada, the European Union (on behalf of

its 15 member states), Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia,

Japan, Korea, Norway, Taiwan, Singapore,

Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. An Annex

to the Declaration describes modalities for tariff

elimination and contains two attachments with product

descriptions.

The Ministers instructed their respective officials

to make good faith efforts to conclude technical

discussions on product coverage and staging in Geneva

and to complete this work by January 31, 1997, “so as

to ensure the implementation of this Declaration by the

largest number of participants.” In addition, they

invited other members of the WTO to join the technical

discussions and become participants in the ITA.

Nonparticipants will not be eligible to take part in the

regular meetings envisaged to review ITA implementation and coverage.41 In addition to the 28 countries

formally signing the December 13, 1996, ITA

Declaration, Malaysia, the Philippines and four other

countries reportedly have signaled their intention to

join the agreement. Together these six countries

comprise about 6 percent of global information

technology trade.42

The Declaration stated that elimination of tariffs

and other duties was to be accomplished in equal

stages beginning in 1997 and concluding in 2000. It

was, however, recognized that “extended staging of

reductions and, before implementation, expansion of

product coverage may be necessary in limited

circumstances.”43 Participants that are WTO members

are to bind these concessions in their national tariff

schedules to GATT 1994 and, by virtue of doing so, to

apply such concessions on an MFN-basis. Non-WTO

members are to implement these measures on an

autonomous basis and incorporate them into their

WTO market access schedule for goods upon WTO

accession.44

In addition to eliminating tariffs, several provisions

of the ITA are intended to address concerns over

nontariff measures. The Declaration states that “Each

party’s trade regime is to evolve in a manner that

enhances market access opportunities for information

technology products.” The regular meetings called for

in the Agreement are to include consultations on

nontariff barriers to trade in information technology

products. WTO dispute settlement will be available to

participants believing their anticipated benefits under

the ITA are being nullified and impaired, whether or

not the measure in question conflicts with provisions of

the GATT 1994. Participants agreed to afford

sympathetic consideration to requests for consultations

concerning the undertakings outlined in the ITA.45

Differences over classification of ITA products

have also led to trade tensions, for example, in the case

of EU reclassification of local area network equipment

imported from the United States, which is now the

subject of WTO dispute settlement. In an effort to

avoid such problems in the future, ITA participants

agreed on achieving, where appropriate, a common

classification of these products within existing HS

nomenclature. The use of two product lists, with both

equally binding on participants, was also intended to

rectify such problems. The “A” list is presented in

customs nomenclature terms; the “B” list—also

referred to as the product “landscape”—is presented in

commercial terms for additional clarification. The goal

was to achieve maximum certainty of product coverage

in a sector hallmarked by rapid technological change

and continual product advances.

The ITA breakthrough at Singapore was

highlighted by Acting USTR Barshefsky as the

principal achievement at the SMC,46 and welcomed by

various leading U.S. firms and associations as a

valuable step offering concrete benefits to both

producers and consumers.47 The American Electronics

Association estimated that in 1995 U.S. exports of

products affected by ITA tariff elimination were $76.5

billion and that tariffs paid by U.S. information

technology exporters averaged $5 billion. ASEAN, the

EU, and Asian Newly Industrialized Economies (Hong

Kong, Korea, and Taiwan) account for the bulk of such

tariff charges.48 Two leading U.S. information
23

technology firms, Compaq and IBM, estimated that on

a global basis they will save over $100 million each as

a result of the tariff elimination envisaged in the ITA.49

ITA Timetable

Final conclusion and formal implementation of the

ITA is slated to occur in 1997 provided that the rate of

participation and staging are acceptable to participants.

The following steps are envisaged in the Declaration

and its Annex before the ITA is implemented on the

target date of July 1, 1997—

 Talks on the phasing-in of tariff cuts as well

as any additions to product coverage and

country participation are to be concluded

by January 31, 1997.

 Modifications to tariff schedules are to be

submitted to other participants by March 1,

1997.

 Reviews and consensus approval of tariff

schedules are to be completed by April 1,

1997. Also by that date, a meeting is to be

convened under the auspices of the WTO

Council on Trade in Goods to review the

state of acceptances. Participants are to

implement the agreed changes “provided

that participants representing 90 percent of

world trade in information technology

products have notified their acceptance,

and provided that the staging has been

agreed to the participants’ satisfaction.”

The WTO will calculate the share of world

trade covered.

 Each participant is to submit the approved

modifications to its tariff schedule to the

WTO. In accordance with WTO rules,

these changes may be implemented after a

90-day period elapses. Thus, in order to be

implemented on July 1, 1997, the WTO

would need to be notified of the proposed

modifications by April 1, 1997.

 Participants are to meet by September 30,

1997 to consider divergences in

classification of information technology

products.50

Pharmaceuticals

During the Uruguay Round, the United States and

16 other major trading countries had agreed to the

reciprocal elimination of duties on over 6,000

pharmaceutical products and chemical intermediates

(the latter to be used primarily for the production of

pharmaceuticals) and their derivatives. The agreement

was a result of a “zero-for-zero” initiative by the

United States, whereby it offered to eliminate tariffs in

particular sectors in return for reciprocal commitments

by other trading partners.51 The 17 countries

participating in the pharmaceutical zero-for-zero

agreement also agreed to conduct a review, at least

once every 3 years, to identify products to be added by

consensus to the national market-access schedules

section concerning pharmaceuticals.52

The first review was conducted under the auspices

of the WTO Council for Trade in Goods. The review

resulted in agreement on the addition of 262

pharmaceutical and 234 intermediate products to the

list of products, as well as the deletion of 25 products

from the previously agreed list that had erroneously

been included in the prior agreement. The 496

products and their derivatives, as specified, are to be

provided duty-free treatment once the agreement is

implemented. On October 11, 1996, the WTO was

notified of these changes via a communication from

the EU on behalf of the members concerned (the

United States among them).53 The notification said

that it had been agreed that duty-free treatment on the

extra products and their derivatives would be

implemented by April 1, 1997.

Least-Developed Countries

At Singapore, Ministers adopted a draft WTO Plan

of Action for the Least-Developed Countries, aimed at

providing a comprehensive approach for measures

taken in favor of these countries. Least-developed

countries (LLDCs) have been designated since 1971 by

the United Nations Economic and Social Council on

the basis of per capita income as well as more recently

by a number of other socioeconomic indicators.54

Initiatives similar to the WTO action plan have been

launched by other multilateral agencies, including the

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

(UNCTAD), the World Bank, and the International

Monetary Fund.

The WTO action plan foresees closer cooperation

between the WTO and other multilateral agencies, such

as those that are engaged in promoting growth in the

LLDCs, through better coordination of national and

international aid efforts, appropriate macroeconomic

policies, and improved market access and supply-side

measures. The WTO has already been directed toward

this goal by several ministerial decisions and

declarations taken under the Uruguay Round

Agreements—

 the Decision on Measures in Favor of

Least-Developed Countries;
24

 the Declaration on the Contribution of the

World Trade Organization to Achieving

Greater Coherence in Global Economic

Policymaking; and

 the Decision on Measures concerning the

Possible Negative Effects of the Reform

Program on Least-Developed and Net

Food-Importing Developing Countries.

The action plan agreed at Singapore focuses on

three main elements: implementation of the Decision

on Measures in Favor of Least-Developed Countries,

human and institutional capacity-building in LLDCs,

and possible improvements in market access. Under

the first element, WTO members will step up efforts to

help LLDCs meet their notification obligations. In

addition, the WTO Committee on Trade and

Development will review implementation of the

decision and promote more broadly the provisions

under the URA that favor LLDCs. Under the second

element, WTO members will give LLDCs priority

when providing technical assistance and will cooperate

closely with other multilateral agencies to help build

human and institutional capacity in the trade area. This

activity will include training courses for public and

private sector representatives and others supporting

export diversification. Under the third element,

ministers were presented with an array of options from

which they might choose that could improve the

market access in developed countries for exports from

LLDCs. These possibilities include granting duty-free

access to LLDC exports, making use of the provisions

of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing to

provide LLDCs with increased market access

opportunities, extending benefits to LLDC suppliers

unilaterally, and providing preferential market access

to LLDC exports. In addition, the WTO Secretariat

will assist nonmember LLDCs wishing to accede to the

WTO in drawing up their Memorandum of the Foreign

Trade Regime and their schedules of concessions in

goods and commitments in services.

New Issues for WTO

Consideration

A number of proposals for new WTO work were

put forth at Singapore and are set out here in order of

their appearance in the ministerial declaration.55 These

topics reflected various members’ priorities for work

beyond the WTO’s built-in agenda.

Core Labor Standards

At Singapore, Ministers declared—

We renew our commitment to the

observance of internationally recognized core

labour standards. The International Labour

Organization (ILO) is the competent body to set

and deal with these standards, and we affirm

our support for its work in promoting them. We

believe that economic growth and development

fostered by increased trade and further trade

liberalization contribute to the promotion of

these standards. We reject the use of labour

standards for protectionist purposes, and agree

that the comparative advantage of countries,

particularly low-wage developing countries,

must in no way be put into question. In this

regard, we note that the WTO and ILO

Secretariats will continue their existing

collaboration.56

The Clinton Administration had placed priority on

trade and labor standards among the new issues to be

discussed at Singapore. It had unsuccessfully sought to

have a working party set up to examine the matter at

the April 1994 Marrakesh Ministerial, which closed the

Uruguay Round. Observance of core labor standards57

was a matter of concern as the administration considers

domestic labor groups are increasingly unlikely to

support the trade liberalization needed to spur global

growth.58

A study released by the OECD in May 1996

examined the relationship between core labor standards

and trade flows. Based on a review of available

literature addressing a range of possible linkages, it

concluded that concerns by developing countries that

observing core labor standards would undermine their

economic performance or competitive position were

probably unfounded. Instead, it said, observance of

core labor standards may actually reinforce long-term

development prospects.59

In large measure supported by Norway, the United

States initially sought: (1) a political declaration on the

desirability of promoting internationally recognized

core labor standards and (2) the establishment of a

WTO Working Party to examine ways in which the

WTO might cooperate with other institutions in

identifying the links between trade and core labor

standards and a potential WTO role in furthering their

observance.60 Specifically, the United States sought to

launch “a non-negotiating and non-prejudicial dialogue

in the WTO on how observance of core labor standards

and trade liberalization can be mutually supportive;”61

the United States was not proposing to negotiate wage
25

rates, harmonize labor costs or to justify protectionist

measures.62

These ideas generally met with lukewarm

support63—or outright opposition64—from other

developed countries and virtually uniform opposition

from developing countries. Opponents said that the

WTO lacked a legitimate role in fostering core labor

standards. They added that linkage of trade and labor

standards would lead to abuse by protectionist

interests and could undermine the comparative

advantage of developing nations. Both before and

during the conference, the issue eluded consensus, until

finally the United States reportedly threatened to

withhold its support for the entire declaration unless it

attained some measure of satisfaction on the labor

issue. The language ultimately agreed has been

interpreted variously, with the United States taking the

view that “This negotiation was extraordinarily

difficult and the convergence of views achieved is no

small accomplishment . . . The effort made at

Singapore will help ensure collaborative efforts

between the WTO and the ILO.”65 Others stressed that

the declaration does not set the relation between trade

and labor standards on the WTO agenda.

Regionalism

The Ministerial Declaration reaffirms members’

commitment to ensure that regional agreements are

complementary to and consistent with WTO rules,

stating that—

The expansion and extent of regional trade

agreements makes it important to analyze

whether the system of WTO rights and

obligations as it relates to regional trade

agreements needs to be further clarified.66

Present WTO rules permit regional trade

agreements (RTAs) subject to certain requirements,

notably that such agreements have as their primary

purpose to facilitate trade among signatories and do not

increase the general incidence of barriers to the trade of

non-parties. Regional arrangements must be notified

to the WTO and are subject to review and regular

reporting requirements.

Most WTO members agree that RTAs promote

further liberalization and may speed integration of

developing and transition economies into the world

economy. Nevertheless, with the rapid increase in both

the number and coverage of regional trade

agreements—144 RTAs have been notified to the WTO

involving nearly all of its 128 members—some WTO

members were of the view that the conference should

adopt tighter disciplines on RTAs.67

At Singapore, Korea successfully sought an

explicit statement in the Ministerial Declaration on the

primacy of the multilateral trading system in the

conduct of trade relations. In addition, Korea, Japan,

Australia and other participants sought to expand the

mandate of the Committee on Regional Trade

Agreements to include an examination of the adequacy

of existing WTO rules and procedures on RTAs. This

would complement the Committee’s existing charge to

consider the systemic implications of regional trade

agreements.

Vigorous discussions regarding the systemic

implications of regional trade arrangements divided

between those countries that do and those countries

that do not participate in RTAs. The former said it was

premature to revise the newly created committee’s

mandate until it had completed outstanding reviews,

whereas the latter felt strongly that existing rules and

procedures were inadequate.68 U.S. negotiators in

particular appear reluctant to reopen current WTO

rules, saying that insufficient attention is being paid to

existing rules and procedures and that many RTAs

among developing countries have not been duly

notified. The United States also believes that some of

the EU’s many preferential agreements are inconsistent

with existing WTO requirements.

Competition Policy

At Singapore, Ministers agreed to establish a

working group to—

study issues raised by Members relating to the

interaction between trade and competition

policy, including anti-competitive practices, in

order to identify any areas that may merit

further consideration in the WTO framework.69

The General Council is to determine after two years

how the work of this body will proceed. The existence

or activity of the Working Party is not to prejudge

whether negotiations will be initiated in the future.

The multilateral trade system contains few formal

links to the distinct area of competition policy, also

known as antitrust policy.70 Both areas of competition

and trade policy have similar goals of improving

consumer welfare and ensuring economic efficiency

through fair competition among producers. However,

competition authorities increasingly face firms whose

reach extends beyond their jurisdictions and whose

actions abroad may lead to trade frictions over

questions of market access being obstructed,

previously negotiated benefits being undermined, and a
26

host of other issues with implications for domestic

consumers. The review of the WTO Agreement on

Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs

Agreement)—scheduled as part of the URA before

2000—is in part designed to present the multilateral

trade system with the opportunity to augment the

agreement with complementary provisions addressing

competition policy, among other issues.

As the principal advocate, the EU sought to launch

a WTO work plan on competition at Singapore.71

Other countries, such as Korea and Japan, made it clear

that such competition work would also need to include

issues related to trade policy such as subsidies and

antidumping.72 The United States said that—although

it favors development of sound antitrust policies

worldwide—it could only support a much narrower

and “educative” endeavor by the WTO because the

United States believes that the time is not ripe to

launch negotiations on a comprehensive framework of

WTO rules.73

Investment

At Singapore, WTO Ministers agreed to “establish

a working group to examine the relationship between

trade and investment” on the understanding that the

work “shall not prejudge whether negotiations will be

initiated in the future” and shall be “without prejudice

to work in UNCTAD” and other fora.74 The General

Council is to determine after 2 years how its work

should proceed.

Comprehensive, widely applicable rules designed

to liberalize foreign direct investment (FDI) do not yet

exist; instead, some 1,160 bilateral, regional, and

plurilateral agreements currently govern FDI. During

the Uruguay Round, an expanded WTO role in

investment was created; however, investment coverage

under these provisions is far from complete. Further

consideration of investment provisions is likely by or

before 2000, the scheduled date to review the TRIMs

Agreement as well as to renew negotiations under the

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)

where a number of investment-related provisions are

also found.

WTO members differ on whether and where to

negotiate new international rules on investment. The

United States considers negotiations taking place in the

OECD to conclude a multilateral agreement on

investment by May 1997 as the best chance to obtain a

high-standard investment agreement.75 The United

States took the position at Singapore that it “is satisfied

that the WTO work program on investment will not

endanger the OECD investment negotiations.”76

Alternatively, some developing country WTO members

would prefer exploring issues concerning trade and

investment in a broader forum such as UNCTAD.77

Transparency in Government

Procurement

At Singapore, Ministers agreed to—

 Establish a working group to conduct a study

on transparency in government procurement

practices, taking into account national policies,

and based on this study, to develop elements for

inclusion in an appropriate agreement.78

No deadline was set for completion of these tasks.

Technical assistance by the WTO Secretariat will be

available to facilitate participation by less-developed

countries in this work.

In April 1996, the world’s four major trading

powers—the United States, the EU, Japan, and

Canada—agreed “to initiate work on an interim

arrangement on transparency, openness, and due

process in government procurement, which would help

to reduce corruption as an impediment to trade.”79 The

goal was to conclude such an agreement by yearend

1997.

The proposal was primarily intended as an interim

step towards broader acceptance of disciplines in an

area heretofore exempted from multilateral WTO rules.

Efforts to broaden participation in the plurilateral WTO

Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) have

met with limited success, partly because the

agreement’s disciplines are considered too rigorous and

complex by potential signatories.80 At present, the

GPA contains extensive disciplines with respect to

nondiscrimination and transparency, but applies to just

23 WTO members.

The proposal advanced by the United States in

May was for a strictly procedural WTO agreement

intended to ensure transparency, openness, and due

process in government procurement. It was envisaged

that such an agreement would be applicable to all

WTO members and would commit members to

publicize procurement opportunities, set out specific

evaluation and award criteria, and provide an

opportunity to challenge procurement decisions before

an independent review authority. The interim

agreement would apply to both goods and services and

would be subject to the WTO’s dispute settlement

understanding.81 It was made clear that such an

arrangement would not deal with the existing price and

other preferences for national suppliers. Agreeing to

negotiate such an interim agreement would not imply a
27

commitment to join the GPA, the United States

explained. By the SMC, a considerable degree of

consensus had been attained,82 such that Ministers

could agree to establish a working group aimed at

developing such an agreement.

Other Issues

In addition, several institutional issues were raised

at Singapore—accession, WTO goals, WTO

decisionmaking, as well as launching a new round of

multilateral trade negotiations. Regarding

membership, the ministerial declaration stresses that

applicants for membership—such as China—must

contribute “to completing the accession process by

accepting WTO rules and offering meaningful market

access commitments,” while at the same time Ministers

hoped to bring the 28 present applicants “expeditiously

into the WTO system.”83 Regarding WTO goals, the

Declaration states, “In pursuit of the goal of sustainable

growth and development for the common good, we

envisage a world where trade flows freely,”84 alluding

to comparable goals set out in RTAs such as the

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the

Free Trade Area of the Americas. Neither issue of a

WTO steering committee nor of launching a new round

of multilateral trade negotiations was addressed in the

final declaration, although the idea of launching a

“Millennium Round” is reported to have “received

wide support from developed and developing

countries.”85

WTO Committee Activity

Introduction

The regular review of WTO committee activity

during 1996 took place in the context of the first report

to the ministerial conference since the establishment of

the WTO on January 1, 1995. Rather than limiting the

scope of review to the calendar year, as done under the

previous GATT 1947 system, each committee typically

reported activities from the time of its initial meeting

in mid-1995 through preparation of its report in fall

1996. In general, the committees met roughly three or

four times during this 1995-96 period, adopted

individual rules of procedure and reporting formats for

their committees, and examined the implementation of

their respective agreements. A foremost concern of the

various committees was the extent to which

notifications—needed to gauge compliance with the

various agreements’ obligations—continued to lag,

sometimes seriously. In general, committees took into

consideration notifications made through October

1996, gauged against an approximate total of 111 WTO

members at that time that were required to submit

notifications (the EU-15 counted as a single member).

General Council86

The General Council functions as the foremost

WTO body overseeing implementation of the Uruguay

Round Agreements (URA) and operation of the WTO

in the absence of a ministerial level conference such as

at Singapore in December 1996. In addition, the

General Council also convenes in the form of the

Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) as well as the Trade

Policy Review Body (TPRB) to carry out the separate

tasks charged to those bodies. The Council for Trade

in Goods, Council for Trade in Services, Council for

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

report to the General Council. In addition, several

committees outside of the subsidiary council structure

report directly to the General Council—

 Committee on Trade and Environment

(reports to the ministerial conference when in

session);

 Committee on Trade and Development (plus

its Subcommittee on Least Developed

Countries);

 Committee on Regional Trade Agreements;

 Committee on Balance of Payments

Restrictions; and

 Committee on Budget, Finance, and

Administration.

During 1996, the council considered the following

administrative matters: the finalization of goods and

services schedules and the protocol of accession for the

United Arab Emirates; the composition of the Textiles

Monitoring Body; reports from the Committee on

Balance of Payments Restrictions and the Committee

on Budget, Finance, and Administration; the

establishment and approval of the rules of procedure

for the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements; and

the establishment of a working party under the

Preshipment Inspection Agreement. In addition, the

council extended waivers concerning implementation

of the Harmonized System (HS); extended waivers

concerning renegotiations of schedules; extended the

time limit for the introduction of HS changes to WTO

schedules of tariff concessions originally set for

January 1, 1996; and extended waivers for preferential

trade arrangements involving developing countries.

The council heard statements from members about

particular issues, as well as considered other issues

such as derestriction of WTO documents; cooperation
28

with intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations as well as their possible observer status; and

staff-related matters such as pensions.

Membership and Accessions

WTO membership reached 128 on December 13,

1996 (table 2-2). In addition, there were another 33

countries in various stages of seeking accession to the

WTO (table 2-3). During 1996, the following 16

countries acceded to the WTO—Qatar, Fiji, Ecuador,

Haiti, St. Kitts and Nevis, Benin, Grenada, United

Arab Emirates, Rwanda, Papua New Guinea, Solomon

Islands, Chad, Gambia, Angola, Bulgaria, and Niger.87

At Singapore, the General Council took action on a

number of further requests for accession. The council

approved the protocol of accession and the report of

the working party for Mongolia and Panama. The

council established WTO working parties (some

transformed from working parties under GATT 1947)

to examine the accession request of Georgia,

Kazakstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Oman, Saudi Arabia,

Table 2-2

WTO Members (128 as of December 13, 1996)

Angola Ghana Nigeria

Antigua and Barbuda Greece Norway

Argentina Grenada Pakistan

Australia Guatemala Papua New Guinea

Austria Guinea Paraguay

Bahrain Guinea Bissau Peru

Bangladesh Guyana Philippines

Barbados Haiti Poland

Belgium Honduras Portugal

Belize Hong Kong Qatar

Benin Hungary Romania

Bolivia Iceland Rwanda

Botswana India Senegal

Brazil Indonesia Sierra Leone

Brunei Darussalam Ireland Singapore

Bulgaria Israel Slovak Republic

Burkina Faso Italy Slovenia

Burundi Jamaica Solomon Islands

Cameroon Japan South Africa

Canada Kenya Spain

Central African Republic Korea Sri Lanka

Chad Kuwait St. Kitts and Nevis

Chile Lesotho St. Lucia

Colombia Liechtenstein St. Vincent and the

Costa Rica Luxembourg Grenadines

Cote d’Ivoire Macau Suriname

Cuba Madagascar Swaziland

Cyprus Malawi Sweden

Czech Republic Malaysia Switzerland

Denmark Maldives Tanzania

Djibouti Mali Thailand

Dominica Malta Togo

Dominican Republic Mauritania Trinidad and Tobago

Ecuador Mauritius Tunisia

Egypt Mexico Turkey

El Salvador Morocco Uganda

European Community Mozambique United Arab Emirates

Fiji Myanmar United Kingdom

Finland Namibia United States

France Netherlands Uruguay

Gabon New Zealand Venezuela

Gambia Nicaragua Zambia

Germany Niger Zimbabwe

Note.—WTO membership as of December 13, 1996. Zaire acceded to the WTO on Jan. 1, 1997.

Source: WTO, “Membership of the World Trade Organization,” WT/L/113/Rev.5, Nov. 15, 1996; WTO website at

http://www.wto.org/memtab2_wpf.html.
29

Table 2-3

Countries seeking membership through WTO Working Parties on accession (33 as of 

December 13, 1996)

Albania Congo Laos Oman Ukraine

Algeria Croatia Latvia Panama Vanuatu

Armenia Estonia Lithuania Russian Federation Vietnam

Belarus Georgia Macedonia Saudi Arabia Uzbekistan

Cambodia Jordan Moldova Seychelles Zaire

China Kazakhstan Mongolia Sudan

Chinese Taipei Kirgyz Republic Nepal Tonga

Note.—Countries seeking membership as of December 13, 1996. Zaire acceded to the WTO on Jan. 1, 1997.

Source: WTO, “Membership of the World Trade Organization,” WT/L/113/Rev.5, Nov. 15, 1996; WTO website

http://www.wto.org/memtab2_wpf.html.

Seychelles, Tonga, and Vanuatu. The Working Party

on the Accession of China held its first meeting as a

WTO working party on March 22, 1996. China was

invited to revise its current proposals or make new

ones so that new impetus can be given to China’s

accession negotiations and work regarding the several

annexes to its draft accession protocol can advance.88

Since December 1994, work on China’s accession has

been conducted in informal meetings.89

Committee on Regional Trade

Agreements90

The majority of WTO committees had a

counterpart under the GATT 1947 system. In February

1996, however, the WTO established a new

committee—the Committee on Regional Trade

Agreements (CRTA)—to consolidate the many

separate working parties that were previously created

under the GATT to review the formation of regional

trade arrangements for consistency with multilateral

trade rules. The committee held its first meeting May

21-22, 1996, and, at later meetings, considered

procedural matters and adopted a work program.

Regional trade agreements may be notified to one

of three WTO bodies, each on a different basis—

 the Council for Trade in Goods, where

working parties may be established to

examine regional trade agreements

involving goods;91

 the Council for Trade in Services, where

working parties may be established to

examine regional trade agreements

involving services;92 or

 the Committee on Trade and Development,

where working parties may be established

to examine regional trade agreements

involving trade preferences among

developing countries.93

The work program of the CRTA includes over 30

regional trade agreements that GATT/WTO members

have notified through October 1996 (table 2-4).94

Whereas the vast majority of working parties are

established under the Council for Trade in Goods (or

previously under GATT 1947), one working party has

been established under the Committee on Trade and

Development to examine MERCOSUR (which will use

relevant provisions of both GATT 1994 and the

Enabling Clause in its examination) and two working

parties were established under the Council for Trade in

Services, one to examine trade in services concerning

NAFTA and another concerning the EU enlargement to

15 members.95

In addition to the CRTA’s mandate to examine

individual regional trade agreements for their

consistency with multilateral rules and procedures—

those adopted by the Council for Trade in Goods,

Council for Trade in Services, and Committee for

Trade and Development—the terms of reference for

the CRTA also include consideration of the “systemic

implications” of regional trade agreements for the

multilateral trading system and development of

recommendations to be presented to the General

Council. Discussions on systemic issues have been

intense but as yet remain unresolved, with some

members advocating changes to Article XXIV while

others highlight that the committee’s mandate already

charges it to examine all regional trade agreements—

including those among developing countries even
30

Table 2-4

Regional trade agreements notified for 

WTO examination

Notifications carried over—

 EU Enlargement: Austria Finland Sweden (goods)

 NAFTA (goods)

 EFTA-Hungary

 EFTA-Israel

 EFTA-Poland

 EU-Czech Republic

 EU-Hungary

 EU-Poland

 EU-Slovak Republic

 MERCOSUR: Argentina Brazil Paraguay Uruguay

 NAFTA (services)

 EU Enlargement: Austria Finland Sweden (services)

 EU-Bulgaria

 EU-Romania

 EU-Estonia

 EU-Latvia

 EU-Lithuania

 EFTA-Bulgaria

 EFTA-Romania

 EFTA-Slovenia

 EU-Turkey

Notifications before June 1996—

 Faroe Islands-EU

 Faroe Islands-Iceland

 Faroe Islands-Norway

 Faroe Islands-Switzerland

 Slovenia-CEFTA

Notifications after June 1996—

 EFTA-Estonia

 EFTA-Latvia

 EFTA-Lithuania

 Romania-Czech Republic

 Romania-Slovak Republic

 EU (services for EU-12 under the Treaty of Rome)

Source: WTO, “Attachment I— Status of Examination of

Regional Trade Agreements,” Report (1996) of the

Committee on Regional Trade Agreements to the

General Council, WT/REG/2, Nov. 6, 1996, pp. 6-7; and

WTO, “Regional Trade Committee Set to Examine 23

Agreements This Year,” Focus, June-July 1996, No. 10,

p. 10.

if they are not notified under Article XXIV and at

times are not notified at all.96

Dispute Settlement Body97

Introduction

As of January 7, 1997 the DSB had received 64

requests for consultations dealing with 44 distinct

matters since it began operation in January 1995, with

seven active panels under way.98 Of the final panel

reports resulting from consultations, four have been

forwarded to the WTO Appellate Body—on

reformulated gasoline, taxation of alcoholic beverages,

cotton and man-made fiber underwear, and desiccated

coconut. Appointment of members to the Appellate

Body was finalized in November 1995.99 On February

15, 1996, working procedures for the Appellate Body

were circulated and on February 21, 1996, the

Appellate Body received its first case.

Reformulated Gasoline Panel and

Appeal

In April 1995, the WTO established its first dispute

panel to examine a complaint by Venezuela concerning

standards set by the United States for conventional and

reformulated gasoline that Venezuela claimed

discriminated against imports of gasoline. Brazil

joined this dispute in May 1995, and the joint panel

issued its findings in January 1996.100

The panel found that in certain instances the

treatment of gasoline imports under the regulation

issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) was inconsistent with certain provisions of

GATT 1994, notably Article III:4 (National

Treatment), and that this treatment could not be

justified under Article XX (General Exceptions), the

article often used to justify action taken for

environmental purposes that may conflict with

multilateral trade rules.

On February 21, 1996, the United States appealed

the panel findings. On April 29, 1996, the Appellate

Body upheld the findings of the panel report that the

EPA provisions do not comply with WTO rules, but the

Appellate Body did adjust certain reasoning by the

panel related to the conservation of exhaustible natural

resources under Article XX. The Appellate Body

report and the panel report as adjusted were adopted on

May 20, 1996.101

Alcoholic Beverage Tax Panel and

Appeal

In September 1995, the WTO established a dispute

panel to examine a complaint by Canada, the European

Communities, and the United States that taxes on

certain liquors in Japan discriminated against imported

liquors. A joint panel issued its findings in July 1996,

finding that the Japanese tax system that levied a

substantially lower tax on a domestic alcohol

(“shochu”) than on imported alcohols (such as

whiskey, cognac, or white spirits) was inconsistent

with GATT 1994 Article III:2.
31

On August 8, 1996, Japan appealed the panel

findings. On October 4, 1996, the Appellate Body

upheld the findings of the panel report that the

Japanese Liquor Tax Law is inconsistent with Article

III but the Appellate Body did adjust certain legal

reasoning by the panel. The Appellate Body report and

the panel report as adjusted were adopted on

November 1, 1996. On December 24, 1996, the United

States applied for binding arbitration to determine the

reasonable period of time for implementation by Japan

of the recommendations of the Appellate Body.102

Underwear Panel and Appeal

In March 1996, the WTO established a dispute

panel to examine a complaint by Costa Rica regarding

U.S. restrictions on imports of cotton and man-made

fiber underwear, applied under the transitional

safeguards provision of the WTO Agreement on

Textiles and Clothing (ATC).103 The panel report was

circulated to WTO members on November 8, 1996,

concluding that U.S. action was inconsistent with

Article 6 of the ATC. On November 11, 1996, Costa

Rica filed a notice of appeal concerning the

permissible temporal scope of application of

transitional safeguard action under the ATC.104

Desiccated Coconut Panel and

Appeal

In March 1996, the WTO established a dispute

panel to examine a complaint by the Philippines

concerning countervailing duties on imports of

desiccated coconut imposed by Brazil.105 The panel

report was circulated to WTO members on October 17,

1996, concluding that the provisions relied on by the

Philippines were inapplicable to the dispute. On

December 16, 1996, the Philippines notified its

decision to appeal against certain issues of law and

legal interpretations of the panel.106

Active Panels

Panels active at the end of 1996 were examining

the following seven complaints—

 India vs. U.S. measures affecting imports

of woven wool shirts and blouses;107

 Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,

United States vs. EU regime for the import,

sale, and distribution of bananas;108

 United States, Canada vs. EU measures

affecting meat and meat products

containing hormones;109

 United States vs. Canada’s measures concerning periodicals;110

 United States vs. Japan’s measures

affecting consumer photographic film and

paper;111

 EU vs. United States’ measures concerning

the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act;112 and

 United States vs. India’s patent protection

for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.113

Operation of the DSB

The committee report by the DSB included several

initial overall observations on the operation of the DSB

during 1995 and 1996. First, the number of matters

referred to the DSB under the WTO has been

considerably greater than was the case under the

GATT. The major trading partners remain the main

participants, both as complaining and responding

members, but developing country members have made

increasing use of the dispute settlement system under

the WTO. Second, there have been a significant

number of settlements reached under the DSU, not

only as a result of panel decisions but moreover

following consultations that have led to settlements

without formal panel procedures. Third, following a

General Council decision adopted in July 1996,

transparency for the WTO dispute settlement system

has increased in that all WTO documents—including

panel reports unless otherwise specified—are to be

circulated as unrestricted subject to certain

exceptions.114

Trade Policy Review Body115

The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) was

established provisionally in 1989 as part of the

Montreal mid-term review of progress of the Uruguay

Round and formally established under the WTO as part

of the Uruguay Round Agreements. Reporting to the

General Council, the task of the TPRB is to evaluate

the full range of individual members’ trade policies

and practices and their impact on the functioning of the

multilateral trading system. The TPRB has reviewed

approximately half (57 of 108, counting the EU-15 as

one) the members of the WTO—those accounting for

98 percent of all members’ trade in goods and

services—at least once since 1989. These evaluations

take place on different review cycles—every two years

for the four largest trading countries or entities in

world trade (the “quad” members—Canada, the EU,

Japan, and the United States), every four years for the
32

next 16 largest economies, every six years for

remaining WTO members, with a longer interval

envisaged for least developed economies. In 1996,

members agreed to make every second review of the

“quad” members an interim review and, if need be, to

apply greater flexibility in scheduling reviews for all

countries. The TPRB also recognized that greater

efforts may be needed to better integrate the remaining

half of WTO members under the TPRM and thus into

the multilateral trading system.116

During 1996, the WTO Secretariat reviewed the

following 15 countries as part of the TPRM to assess

these countries’ trade policies for consistency with

WTO multilateral trade rules: Morocco, Venezuela,

Dominican Republic, Czech Republic, Switzerland,

Singapore, Norway, Zambia, Colombia, Korea, New

Zealand, Brazil, United States, Canada, and El

Salvador.

Council on Trade in Goods117

The Council on Trade in Goods is the largest of the

three subsidiary councils (goods, services, and

intellectual property), overseeing operation of 13

multilateral trade agreements and their 12

corresponding committees set out below in order of

appearance in the URA. The WTO Agreement on

Preshipment Inspection (PSI) has no committee,

although the Independent Entity called for in the

agreement for purposes of settling PSI disputes became

operational in 1996. In addition, several other bodies

also report to the Council for Trade in Goods, such as

the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, the

Working Group on Notification Obligations and

Procedures, and regional agreements involving trade in

goods that are notified to the council before being

referred to the Committee on Regional Trade

Agreements.

Committee on Market Access118

The committee supervises the implementation of

Uruguay Round concessions relating to tariffs and

nontariff measures, including concessions by acceding

countries, addressing market access issues not covered

by another WTO body. In addition, the committee

covers matters related to the WTO Integrated Data

Base (IDB). Nearly all WTO members use the

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding

System (HS), a customs nomenclature administered by

the World Customs Organization (WCO). In 1993,

amendments were agreed to the HS that were to take

effect January 1, 1996. A number of countries,

however, were unable to implement these changes in

time. As a result, in 1996 the committee extended 33

waivers for amendments to the HS through April 1997.

In addition, the committee also extended 11 waivers as

a result of Article XXVIII (Modification of Schedules)

renegotiations that were still outstanding.

Committee on Agriculture119

The committee has focused on agricultural market

access commitments, particularly tariff and quota

commitments as well as agricultural safeguards, in its

systematic review of the provisions of the agreement.

This focus has generated a number of questions

concerning tariff rate quotas (TRQs) such as how to

allocate TRQs between countries receiving preferential

and nonpreferential terms, to state trading enterprises,

how to auction off licenses for such TRQs, and similar

questions that may relate to the connection between the

WTO Agreements on Agriculture, Import Licensing,

and Trade-Related Investment Measures. Unlike many

committees, notifications to the Committee on

Agriculture seem to have been satisfactory although at

times incomplete or submitted late. Future issues for

the committee will include export credits to help

prevent the circumvention of export subsidy

commitments as well as preparations for new

agriculture negotiations to be initiated one year before

the end of the 1995-2000 implementation period.

Committee on Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures120

The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Measures oversees implementation of the Agreement

on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Measures. In 1996, it adopted working procedures and

established lists of national enquiry points to respond

to requests for information regarding sanitary and

phytosanitary (SPS) measures, to be updated regularly.

The committee also established lists of national

notification authorities, those authorities responsible

for notifications concerning sanitary and phytosanitary

measures. The committee began drafting guidelines for

the practical implementation of article 5.5 (Assessment

of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level of

Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection), which aims to

achieve a consistent application of different levels of

SPS protection against risks to human, animal, or plant

life or health without becoming a disguised restriction

on international trade. The committee is also

developing a procedure to monitor harmonization of

SPS measures along the lines of existing international

standards.
33

Textiles Monitoring Body121

The Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB) consists of a

chairman and 10 members appointed to oversee the

implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and

Clothing (ATC). The ATC requires notifications

concerning (1) restrictions under the Multifiber

Arrangement (MFA) that were in force at the end of

1994 that were carried over to the ATC (article 2.1), (2)

the first stage integration of textile trade under GATT

1994 rules (articles 2.6 and 2.7), (3) non-MFA

restrictions remaining in place (article 3.1), and (4)

transitional safeguards regarding textile trade (article

6.1).

Only four WTO members (Canada, the EU,

Norway, and the United States) notified MFA

restrictions to be carried over into the ATC. Forty-two

members—most of those that were so

required—notified the products that they were required

to integrate into GATT 1994 on January 1, 1995, under

terms of the ATC. Twenty-nine countries notified that

they maintained non-MFA restrictions, although a

number of these further elaborated that the measures

notified did not actually restrict trade or were being

phased out. Only seven WTO members renounced

their rights to use the transitional safeguards for textile

trade permitted under the ATC, whereas 51—a

substantial part of the membership—notified their

desire to retain the right to use them. The remaining

half of WTO members have failed so far to notify

whether or not they wish to retain the right to use these

provisions.

In 1996, the Council on Trade in Goods held

discussions about the implementation of the ATC in

which concerns were expressed that the first stage of

integration programs carried out by four importing

members in January 1995 had not been commercially

meaningful. Papers submitted by representatives of

both the exporter camp (such as Brunei, Hong Kong,

India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan,

Philippines, Singapore, Thailand) and the importer

camp (such as Canada, EU, Norway, United States)

helped focus discussions. At issue was that virtually

all products integrated during the first stage had never

before been subject to quantitative restrictions, and

further concerns were raised that the second stage

integration in January 1998 may not be any more

commercially meaningful. As a consequence, the

progressive improvement of access to markets and the

smooth transition from MFA to GATT/WTO

disciplines was being disrupted. Similar complaints

from the exporter camp were made concerning the use

of transitional safeguards permitted under the

agreement in particular the 25 consultation requests

made by the United States in 1995 and 1996 as well as

7 by Brazil. Members responding from the importer

camp indicated that these actions were perfectly

legitimate and consistent with the provisions of the

agreement. Nonetheless, the Singapore Ministerial

Declaration confirmed the commitment of WTO

members to the full and faithful implementation of the

ATC, as well as directing that the use of safeguard

measures under ATC provisions should be as sparing

as possible.122

Committee on Technical Barriers to

Trade123

The committee discussed implementation of the

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

through one-time and periodic notifications. These

included national laws and regulations concerning

standards (article 15.2); standards bodies required and

those that have volunteered to accept the Code of Good

Practice under Annex 3(c); changes in technical

regulations and conformity assessment procedures;

establishment of national enquiry points to answer

trade-related technical questions about technical

regulations, standards, and assessment procedures; and

standards agreements reached with other countries that

may have significant trade effects. However, by late

October 1996, only 42 WTO members had notified

their laws and only 60 bodies (of an estimated 600 or

more standardizing bodies worldwide) had notified

acceptance of the code. The committee also discussed

environmental labelling programs and measures

(“ecolabelling”), including with the Committee on

Trade and Environment. The issue involved is whether

ecolabelling schemes, in particular criteria based on

nonproduct processes and production methods (PPMs),

are covered under provisions of the TBT Agreement.

Committee on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures124

The committee created an Informal Group of

Experts in 1995 and also established in 1996 a

Permanent Group of Experts. The informal group will

help develop an understanding among members on the

calculation of ad valorem subsidization (Annex IV of

the agreement). The permanent group will help with

advice on prohibited subsidies and related matters

under the agreement. The committee reviewed

available notifications, which are to include full

subsidy notification, subsidies inconsistent with the

agreement, subsidies maintained as part of

transformation into a market economy, nonactionable

subsidies, subsidies linked to privatization programs,
34

countervailing duty laws and regulations, and

semiannual reporting of countervailing duty action

taken. The committee also concluded that additional

efforts are needed to submit full and complete notifications on a timely basis.125

Committee on Antidumping

Practices126

The committee received and examined notification

of members’ antidumping laws and regulations as well

as antidumping actions taken.127 The committee also

requested notification of the competent national

authorities involved in initiating antidumping action.

The committee formed an Ad Hoc Group on

Implementation to discuss topics and prepare

recommendations for the committee on issues where

agreement seems possible. The committee also

authorized the chairman to undertake informal

consultations to develop a framework for future

discussions on the issue of anticircumvention,

including the possible scope of the issue and whether

existing mechanisms might not be sufficient. The

committee also concluded that additional efforts are

needed to submit full and complete notifications on a

timely basis.

Committee on Customs

Valuation128

The committee examined notification of national

legislation and adopted the decisions agreed as part of

the URA concerning customs valuation. A large

number (51) of developing country members notified

their delayed application of the agreement permitted

under article 20.1, and the committee recommended to

the Ministers at Singapore that technical assistance for

developing countries be made available to help them

effectively implement the agreement.

Committee on Rules of Origin129

The committee officially launched the

Harmonization Work Program on July 20, 1995, in

conjunction with the Technical Committee on Rules of

Origin (TCRO) established under the auspices of the

World Customs Organization. The program, with

TCRO work scheduled for completion by July 20,

1998, has three phases: (1) the definition of goods

wholly obtained in one country, and of minimal

operations or processes not conferring origin; (2)

substantial transformation, represented by changes in

tariff classification; and (3) substantial transformation,

as determined by supplementary criteria. The first

phase is largely completed except for two remaining

issues—one, the origin of recovered articles shipped

beyond the boundaries of the consumer country (such

as scrap metal or parts shipped abroad for recovery)

and, two, goods produced on ships or vessels offshore

which leads to the unresolved definition of the term

“country.” Phase two is ongoing, even as work will

soon commence on phase three. The committee

expressed concern over lagging notifications; by

October 1996, about one-half of the members had

notified their nonpreferential and preferential rules of

origin as required.

Committee on Import Licensing130

The committee received notifications of laws and

regulations pertinent to import licensing. These include

notifications concerning sources where licensing

procedures are published (article 1.4a), responses to the

annual questionnaire on import licensing procedures

(article 7.3), and the conformity of domestic legislation

on licensing with the agreement (article 8.2b).

Twenty-four developing country members have

notified their delayed application of the automatic

licensing provisions (article 2.2) permitted under the

agreement. The committee expressed concern over

lagging notifications. In addition, Guatemala,

Honduras, Mexico, and the United States requested

consultations with the EU in the committee concerning

the EU import regime regarding bananas.

Committee on Trade-Related

Investment Measures131

Early in 1995, the committee received notification

from members of trade-related investment measures

inconsistent with the agreement, as well as notification

from other members that they have no TRIMs. By fall

1996, roughly 24 countries had notified TRIMs that are

not in conformity with the agreement. The committee

recognized that issues raised concerning these

notifications include their timing and adequacy, the

recent introduction or modification of measures

covered under the agreement, and the consistency of

notified measures with other WTO agreements—such

as the Agriculture Agreement or Subsidies Agreement.

The committee also recognized that a future issue for it

to consider is whether provisions on investment policy

and competition policy should supplement the

agreement.
35

Committee on Safeguards132

In 1996, the committee adopted its rules of

procedure and proceeded with its examination of

notifications made. These notifications include

safeguard laws and regulations (article 12.6);

pre-existing Article XIX measures (article 12.7);

so-called “grey area” measures (articles 11.1 and 12.7);

timetables for elimination or legitimation of such

nonconforming grey area measures (article 11.2);

initiation or other action concerning safeguard

measures (article 12.1); and required consultations

(article 12.5).

The committee expressed concern over lagging

notifications, observing that only about 60 percent of

members had submitted their safeguards legislation by

October 1996 even though the deadline to do so had

been in March 1995. The very few notifications of

pre-existing Article XIX measures also raised the

question of whether few such measures existed or

whether members have failed to date to notify them. In

late 1995 and again in 1996, the committee reviewed

notifications from Korea, the United States, and

subsequently Brazil, concerning the initiation of

safeguards investigations.

Preshipment Inspection Entity

On May 1, 1996, the independent entity established

by the General Council in December 1995 under the

WTO Agreement on PSI became operational. The

agreement sets out standardized procedures for

preshipment inspections—the practice of employing

specialized private companies to check shipment

details such as price, quantity, and quality of goods

ordered overseas. PSI is currently employed by some

30 developing countries, mainly in Africa, to

compensate for inadequacies in administrative

infrastructure and thus to avoid trade delays and

safeguard national financial interests. The agreement

calls for an independent review procedure to resolve

disputes between an exporter and a PSI agency. The

independent entity (IE) will be jointly administered by

an organization representing PSI agencies—the

International Federation of Inspection Agencies

(IFIA)—and another representing exporters—the

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A single

independent trade expert or a three member panel,

selected from the list of experts maintained by the IE

from nominations, will decide a dispute referred to it

by majority vote within eight working days from its

being filed.133 To date, the IE has received no requests

for an independent review.

Working Party on State Trading

Enterprises134

The working party was established in early 1995 as

part of the Understanding on the Interpretation of

Article XVII of GATT 1994. Article XVII pertains to

state trading enterprises and the working party is

charged with reviewing notifications on these

enterprises, and with ultimately developing a list of

relationships between governments and such

enterprises. In 1996, the working party began to review

the new and full notifications received from members.

The working party has received 45 such notifications

since its establishment (counting the EU-15 as one).

Working Group on Notification

Obligations and Procedures135

The working group was formed following the

establishment of the WTO to review the notification

obligations and procedures under the agreements in

Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement, the agreements

involving trade in goods. The group sought to

rationalize requirements, avoid duplication, and

improve compliance with notification obligations

because of the important role played by timely and

complete notifications in carrying out the URA,

particularly given the increase in such notifications

resulting from the Round. The working group

concluded that there were 175 notification obligations

or procedures resulting from Annex 1A, falling into

three categories—(1) periodic or regular notifications,

of which there were 26 semiannual, annual, biennial, or

triennial notifications; (2) one-time notifications, to

provide startup information of existing situations at the

entry-into-force of the various URA; and (3) ad hoc

notifications, required when a WTO member takes

certain action. The group concluded that, once the

heavy burden of one-time notifications was met, only a

few areas might warrant actual changes in reporting

requirements so as to avoid duplicative notification—

for example, in the areas involving the WTO

Agriculture Agreement and Subsidies Agreement.

Another conclusion concerned the need for extensive

and focused technical assistance for at least certain

developing country members in order to improve the

rate of compliance with notification obligations for the

URA.

Council for Trade in Services136

Beginning in 1995 and continuing into 1996, the

Council for Trade in Services discussed and adopted

various rules and procedures, such as for modification

and rectification of national schedules of commitments
36

in services and for notifying established contact points

regarding services. In addition, several other bodies

also report to the Council for Trade in Services: the

Committee on Specific Commitments, Committee on

Trade in Financial Services, Group on Basic

Telecommunications,137 Negotiating Group on

Maritime Transport Services, Working Party on

Professional Services, and Working Party on GATS

Rules.

A number of trade agreements involving services

were notified to the council under GATS article V

(Economic Integration), which were forwarded to the

Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for

examination concerning their consistency with

GATT/WTO trade rules and disciplines. These

notifications included the “Economic Integration

Agreement” submitted by the EU (modifying the

Treaty of Rome regarding services for the EC-12138

prior to enlargement), Australia and New Zealand’s

Closer Economic Relations, and three EU agreements

(so-called Europe agreements) separately with the

Slovak Republic, Hungary, and Poland.

The Committee on Specific Commitments and the

Working Party on GATS Rules are involved with

developing procedures that help administer the GATS

framework agreement, as well as being involved

previously with services negotiations indicated under

the GATS built-in agenda. During 1996, the Group on

Basic Telecommunications, the Negotiating Group on

Maritime Transport Services, and the Working Party on

Professional Services were involved in completing the

extended negotiations originally indicated for

particular service sectors at the December 1993

conclusion of the Uruguay Round.139

The Committee on Specific Commitments is

developing procedures to assist with technical aspects

of commitments made in the national schedules on

services. The Working Party on GATS Rules is

considering how to implement the negotiations built

into the GATS. These include Article X (Emergency

Safeguard Measures) negotiations on emergency

safeguard measures in services,140 Article XIII

(Government Procurement) negotiations on

government procurement in services,141 and Article

XV (Subsidies) negotiations on trade-distorting

subsidies in services.142 The Singapore Ministerial

Declaration noted that more analytical work will be

needed in these three areas of emergency safeguards,

procurement, and subsidies.143

Financial Services Negotiations

The Committee on Trade in Financial Services was

involved during 1996 in ensuring the adoption of the

Interim Agreement on Financial Services (formally, the

Second Protocol to the GATS), agreed in July 1995.

The interim agreement entered into force September 1,

1996 and will continue through 1997.144 Schedules of

commitments attached to the interim agreement may be

modified or withdrawn during the final 60-day period

of the agreement, starting November 1, 1997, in effect

initiating new negotiations on trade in financial

services. The committee intends to resume discussions

concerning these new negotiations in April 1997.

Movement of Natural Persons

Negotiations

The Agreement on the Movement of Natural

Persons (formally, the Third Protocol to the GATS)

was concluded in July 1995 as part of the extended

service sector negotiations beyond the end of the

Uruguay Round. It was opened for acceptance through

June 30, 1996. The deadline for acceptance was

extended through November 1996, so that several

members could complete their acceptance procedures

(Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland).

Telecommunications Services

Negotiations

The Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications (NGBT) began deliberations in May 1994

and concluded in April 1996 as part of the extended

negotiations on service sectors following the

conclusion of the Uruguay Round. However, despite

conclusion of the NGBT negotiations on April 30,

1996, participants agreed to further extend the deadline

until February 15, 1997 regarding commitments to be

made under national schedules—negotiations that

continued in the Group on Basic Telecommunications

(GBT).

During 1996, the NGBT endeavored to conclude

the Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services

(formally, the Fourth Protocol to the GATS), scheduled

to enter into force January 1, 1998. Once in force, the

schedules of commitments on basic telecommunications services will constitute part of the GATS

schedules in force since January 1, 1995.145 The

protocol agreed in April 1996, along with the

commitments negotiated by February 1997, is open for

acceptance until November 30, 1997.
37

At the April 1996 conclusion of negotiations, there

were 53 full participants and 24 observers who

submitted 34 schedules of commitments representing

48 governments. These schedules reflected

commitments in the areas of voice telephony; local,

long distance, and international telephone service; data

transmission services, cellular and other mobile

telephone service; private leased circuit services; and

satellite services. Thirty of the 34 schedules embraced

commitments related to procompetitive regulatory

disciplines involving competition safeguards,

interconnection, licensing, and the independence of

regulators. The following section summarizes the

objectives of the basic telecommunications talks,

commitments made by major U.S. trading partners, and

the outcome of the negotiations.

Objectives of the Negotiations

The Ministerial Decision establishing the NGBT

mandated conclusion of negotiations regarding basic

telecommunications services by April 30, 1996.146

However, after the United States indicated that current

offers were not sufficiently trade liberalizing,

participants agreed to extend negotiations further. The

Council for Trade in Services issued on April 30, 1996

the Decision on Commitments in Basic Telecommunications that established a one-month

period—from January 15 to February 15,

1997—during which members could improve, modify,

or withdraw their offers and list of MFN exemptions

without penalty. In addition, the Decision replaced the

NGBT with the GBT.

The Ministerial Decision directed members of the

NGBT to negotiate with a view to the “progressive

liberalization of trade in telecommunication transport

networks and services.”147 The telecommunications

annex to the GATS defines transport networks as the

“telecommunication infrastructure which permits

telecommunications between and among defined

network termination points.”148 Consequently, the

talks focused not only on basic service provisions, but

on ownership and control of telecommunication

facilities.

During negotiations, the United States endeavored

to obtain a level of openness similar to that of the U.S.

market after passage of the Telecommunications Act of

1996. The Act provides for competition in the local,

long distance, and international calling markets,

through all telecommunication infrastructure (e.g.,

wireline, radio-based, and cable television), and allows

for 100 percent indirect ownership of U.S.

telecommunication firms.149 Specific aspects of the

U.S. approach were to obtain foreign commitments to

market access and national treatment, and foreign

adoption of pro-competitive principles. U.S.

negotiators urged the adoption of a reference paper

tabled in the NGBT setting out pro-competitive

principles, not only to establish agreement on common

regulatory approaches to basic telecommunications,

but to preserve the meaningfulness of commitments on

value-added telecommunication services, which were

scheduled prior to December 1993.150 The

telecommunications annex guarantees access to

infrastructure necessary to provide value-added

services, but does not impose disciplines in areas such

as leased line pricing151 and interconnection

requirements152, which significantly affect the

competitive position of value-added service providers.

Pro-competitive principles include:

 safeguards against anti-competitive

practices, including cross-subsidization,

among monopolies or other firms with

market power;

 timely and cost-based interconnection

under non-discriminatory terms, conditions, rates, and quality;

 transparent and nondiscriminatory

universal service requirements153 that are

no more burdensome than necessary;

 transparent and publicly available licensing criteria and reasons for denial;

 independence of regulators and suppliers

of basic telecommunication services; and

 publication of international accounting

rates.

In short, the ultimate objectives of negotiations

over basic telecommunication were to benefit

telecommunication service suppliers by increasing

investment opportunities and establishing competitive

markets abroad; benefit telecommunication consumers,

including multinational corporations, by achieving

lower prices and broader service offerings; and

increase business opportunities for manufacturers of

telecommunication, computer, and aerospace

equipment.154

Summary of Commitments on Basic

Telecommunications

OECD Member Countries. Although the

European Union and the United States had not

negotiated mutually acceptable offers by the April

1996 extension, they did negotiate such offers by the

fall of 1996. Both scheduled commitments that reflect

recent efforts to deregulate and liberalize their markets

for telecommunication services. The 1996 U.S.
38

Telecommunications Act provided a liberal trading and

investment environment in the United States, while the

ongoing implementation of the European Commission’s telecommunication directives established the

liberal climate in the European Union. The United

States and the EU largely granted one another rights to

acquire 100-percent equity in all basic service

providers and telecommunication facilities,155

including satellite service providers and satellite

facilities.156 In addition, both partners scheduled

commitments that allow foreign firms to provide

essentially all basic telecommunication services.

Finally, both partners adopted all of the

pro-competitive regulatory principles outlined in the

reference paper. Although the EU and the United

States encouraged other OECD trading partners to

liberalize their telecommunication sectors to a similar

extent, most did not.

Despite objections lodged by the United States and

the EU, Japan declined to remove a 20-percent foreign

ownership cap pertaining to its two largest carriers,

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation

(NTT)157 and Kokusai Denshin Denwa (KDD).158

However, Japan did schedule commitments that allow

100 percent foreign ownership of all other service

providers and facilities and adopted the reference paper

on pro-competitive regulatory principles in its entirety.

At the end of the negotiations, the United States

expressed concern that Japan’s ownership restrictions

might permit others, particularly developing countries,

to better justify their own ownership limitations.159

The United States’ two largest telecommunication

service trading partners, Canada and Mexico, also

remained steadfast in their restrictions on foreign

ownership. Canada retained a restriction that imposes a

46.7 percent equity cap on foreign ownership of all

basic telecommunication service providers except

those providing services through submarine cables and

mobile and fixed satellites. Canada imposed no

foreign ownership restrictions on the latter. Canada’s

reluctance to remove its restriction on foreign

investment was not well received, as the offers of

several low-income developing countries allowed more

foreign participation than did Canada. The United

States responded to Canada’s unwillingness to

eliminate the foreign investment limitation by listing

an MFN exemption for one-way satellite transmission

of direct to home (DTH) broadcasting, direct broadcast

satellite (DBS),160 and digital audio transmission

services.161

Mexico revised its offer the day before the

negotiations concluded, increasing its foreign equity

limits on all telecommunication services from 40

percent to 49 percent. An exception pertains to cellular

services, where Mexico scheduled commitments that

allow 100-percent foreign ownership. Mexico also

scheduled commitments that accord foreign service

providers full market access and national treatment

when providing all services except domestic satellite

services, for which foreign providers are required to

use Mexican infrastructure until 2002.

Like Mexico, Korea improved its offer shortly

before the negotiation’s end. Korea increased foreign

ownership limitations on facilities-based providers

from 33 percent to 49 percent by 2001; on Korea

Telecom from 20 percent to 33 percent by 2001; and

on cellular service providers from 49 percent to 100

percent by 2001. Beyond this, Korea scheduled

commitments providing foreign firms with full market

access and national treatment as of January 1, 1998,

and adopted the reference paper on pro-competitive

regulatory principles in its entirety.

Asia. Telecommunication service markets in Asia

are relatively small compared to the North American

and European markets and many regions within Asian

countries are underserved by telecommunications

services. For these reasons, many governments in Asia

feel obligated to protect their telecommunication

markets. Foreign firms, noting the same reasons,

identify Asian markets as those with the most potential

for growth.162 U.S. negotiators consistently expressed

the belief that a “critical mass” of good offers could

not be realized without significant liberalization among

key Asian markets. In this sense of striving for a

critical mass, the United States and others viewed the

offer tabled by India as disappointing. India only

committed to guarantee a 25 percent foreign

investment access limit, rather than its existing ceiling

of 49 percent. India also declined to offer full

commitments on market access and national treatment,

indicating that market entry may be subject to

economic needs testing. In addition, while India

adopted certain parts of the reference paper on

pro-competitive principles, it altered the language of

many of the principles addressing competitive

safeguards, interconnection, regulatory independence,

and the allocation of scarce resources. India also was

the first trading partner to list an MFN exemption

pertaining to devising cost-based accounting rates,163

possibly spurred by the International Settlement Rates

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on

December 19, 1996. Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh,

and Turkey all subsequently took MFN exemption

pertaining to accounting rates. By contrast, the offer

submitted by Malaysia was seen as a breakthrough late

in the negotiations. Malaysia rolled back foreign
39

investment caps, permitting 30 percent foreign

ownership of existing telecommunication operators,

and adopted the reference paper in its entirety.

Malaysia’s offer was perceived as particularly

forthcoming in light of the fact that its public

telecommunication sector accounts for 2.5 percent of

its gross domestic product, the highest percentage of

any country in the region according to the International

Telecommunications Union.164

Latin America. The offers from the Latin

American trading partners generally improved through

the end of negotiations. Between the April 30, 1996

extension and February 15, 1997, nine Latin American

and Caribbean countries submitted new offers.

Brazil improved its offer the day before the

conclusion of negotiations by offering to phase out its

49-percent foreign equity limits on cellular and satellite

transport services by July 1999, while scheduling a

commitment to establish cellular telephone duopolies

in each designated market. Brazil’s offer remains quite

restrictive compared to other Latin American trading

partners and does not offer any significant

liberalization of foreign investment improvements or

improve foreign access to satellite services and

facilities. However, Brazil’s offer binds forthcoming

telecommunications legislation that U.S. negotiators

note may liberalize Brazil’s telecommunication sector

more than that of several other Latin American

markets.165

Argentina ended negotiations on a potentially

disturbing note, indicating an intention to retreat from

its formerly liberal offer regarding foreign provision of

satellite-based services and access to satellite facilities,

reflecting the tone of satellite regulations issued by the

government of Argentina in January 1997.166 In the

end, Argentina took an MFN exemption regarding

foreign access to geostationary fixed satellite systems,

but otherwise made relatively liberal offers with

respect to foreign provision of other services and

access to other facilities.

Conclusion of the Negotiations

On February 15, 1997, the GBT successfully

concluded an agreement that enters into effect January

1, 1998. The accord binds 69 countries, covering 91

percent of $600 billion167 in annual global

telecommunication revenues.168 Since the April 30,

1996 extension, 46 trading partners improved their

offers,169 and 21 countries submitted new offers.170

The agreement provides market access for local,

long-distance, and international service through any

means of network technology, either on a facilities

basis or through resale of existing network capacity. In

all, 56 countries scheduled commitments that allow, or

will phase in, foreign ownership or control of many or

all telecommunication service providers and facilities;

55 trading partners adopted pro-competitive regulatory

principles that reflect, in part, the U.S.

Telecommunications Act of 1996; and 56 countries

guarantee market access to some or all

telecommunication services and facilities, with 50 of

these guaranteeing access to satellite services and

satellite facilities.171

The landmark agreement will not only provide a

means of enforcement, but will, for the first time, open

up to foreign competition the rapidly growing markets

in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa. While

the United States and Europe account for more than

half of the world’s $600 billion a year

telecommunication revenue, the average annual

revenue growth of 9.7 percent in developing countries,

from 1990 to 1995, was more than double the average

annual growth of 4.1 percent in industrial countries

over the same period.172 Additionally, it is projected

that over the next five years developing countries will

require $60 billion a year in capital investment for

telecommunications, expanding potential markets for

U.S. manufacturers of telecommunication equipment.173

Maritime Transport Services

Negotiations

The Negotiating Group on Maritime Transport

Services (NGMTS) began deliberations in 1994 and

concluded in June 1996 as part of the extended

negotiations on service sectors following the

conclusion of the Uruguay Round. There were 56 full

participants and 16 observers at the April 1996

conclusion of these negotiations of which 35 members

made commitments on maritime transport services.

The group discussed issues in maritime transport

involving international shipping, auxiliary shipping

services, access to port facilities, and multimodal

transportation. Negotiations were suspended on June

28, 1996 because some participants considered that an

insufficient critical mass of offers had been tabled.

The talks are to be resumed and concluded as part of

the comprehensive negotiations on trade in services in

2000 called for in the GATS Article XIX (Negotiation

of Specific Commitments). Until January 2000, the

participants agreed not to apply measures concerning

maritime transport services so as to improve their

negotiating position, although they may liberalize such

services.174
40

Professional Services Discussions

During 1996, the Working Party on Professional

Services (WPPS) concentrated on its work program,

given in the Final Act, to examine (1) the development

of multilateral disciplines, (2) the use of international

standards, and (3) the establishment of guidelines for

the recognition of qualifications such as mutual

recognition agreements. The WPPS has focused first

on the field of accounting. In 1996, the WPPS held

seminars regarding domestic regulation in the

accounting sector to take account of work done in both

private (for example, by the International Federation of

Accountants, the International Accounting Standards

Committee) and multilateral organizations (OECD,

UNCTAD). The WPPS drew up a list of priority issues

that will include requirements and regulations

concerning professional qualifications and other

necessary licenses; establishment of commercial

presence; nationality and residency; professional

liability; and entry and temporary stay. The WPPS

also progressed in developing draft guidelines to help

negotiate mutual recognition agreements in the field of

accounting. In the Singapore Ministerial Declaration,

members agreed to aim to complete work in the field

of accounting by the end of 1997.175

Council for Trade-Related

Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights176

The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement)

entered into force with the establishment of the WTO

on January 1, 1995. However, the provisions of the

TRIPs Agreement contain a general one-year grace

period before any WTO member is obliged to apply its

provisions. For developing country and transition

economy WTO members, the grace period is five years

under article 65.1 (Transitional Arrangements), that is,

by January 1, 2000. For all members, however, the

most-favored-nation and national treatment provisions

(TRIPs articles 3, 4, 5) became applicable from

January 1, 1996. Thus, provisions of the TRIPs

Agreement only began to become effective beginning

in January 1996 and then only partially for certain

members.

During 1996, major items considered by the

council included required notifications; national

intellectual property laws and regulations that had been

notified; the operation of the agreement, particularly in

regard to disputes over so-called mailbox provisions

(articles 70.8, 70.9)177 and the protection of existing

subject matter (particularly article 70.2); statements

regarding the revocation of patents; technical

cooperation particularly for developed country

members; and cooperation with the World Intellectual

Property Organization (WIPO).

In late 1995, the Council for TRIPs adopted several

decisions to help structure the required notification of

national legislation on intellectual property in 1996.

These included procedures for notification of national

laws, a possible common register of such laws and

regulations, the format for notifications, and a checklist

regarding enforcement of these laws. By November

1996, a substantial number of notifications had been

submitted and a schedule to review national

implementing legislation during 1996-97 was set up.

The council reviewed legislation in 1996 concerning

trademarks, geographical indications, and industrial

designs, and will continue in 1997 to review legislation

on patents, integrated circuit design, proprietary

business information, and anticompetitive business

practices.

In 1996, the council received notification of

disputes concerning Article 70 (Protection of Existing

Subject Matter) in two areas. In February 1996, the

United States initiated dispute settlement proceedings

concerning sound recordings (see below), and notified

the council of a mutually agreed solution in October.

In July 1996, the United States initiated dispute

settlement proceedings concerning delays in

notification of mailbox provisions under the

agreement. The United States requested dispute

settlement panels to examine the failure to implement

these provisions in India and in Pakistan on July 2 and

4, 1996, respectively.178

An Agreement between the WIPO and the WTO

went into effect beginning January 1, 1996. The

WIPO-WTO Agreement—approved by the council at

the end of 1995—relates to cooperation in the access to

national laws and regulations concerning intellectual

property, the implementation of Paris Convention

article 6ter (National Emblems) through the TRIPs

Agreement, and technical assistance.179

Also during 1996, the council considered—but in

general did not resolve—items related to future

negotiations under the TRIPs Agreement, often

referred to as the built-in agenda. These issues include

a review of the provisions providing protection for

geographical indications as well as entering into new

negotiations to increase this protection (articles 23 and

24), patentable subject matter (article 27), dispute

settlement provisions (article 64), as well as

implementation of the TRIPs Agreement once its

transitional provisions have expired (article 71).
41

Sound Recordings

On February 9, 1996, the United States requested

consultations with Japan concerning the term of

protection afforded sound recordings in Japan. The

TRIPs Agreement requires a 50 year term of protection

for sound recordings whereas Japan only provided

recordings a 25-year protection period. The United

States, joined by the EU, held consultations with Japan

on March 4, 1996 to discuss why owners of rights to

sound recordings produced between 1946 and 1971

(the 1996 entry into force of the provisions under the

TRIPs Agreement less a 50- and 25-year protection

term, respectively) were being denied exclusive rights

to these sound recordings. The EU requested its own

consultations with Japan, which were held on June 24,

1996, joined by the United States as an interested

party.180 On December 26, 1996, the Government of

Japan promulgated amendments to extend protection to

1946 and provide retroactive protection for sound

recordings, thus terminating dispute settlement

proceedings on a mutually satisfactory basis.181

Plurilateral Agreements

During the 1973-79 Tokyo Round, nine

sector-specific agreements (the so-called Tokyo Round

codes of conduct) were concluded under the GATT;

these agreements—referred to as “plurilateral”

agreements—were binding only on those GATT

members that signed them rather than being

“multilateral” agreements binding on all GATT

contracting parties. Under the WTO Agreement, five

of these agreements became multilateral agreements

applicable to all WTO members—those concerning

antidumping, subsidies, technical barriers to trade (or

“standards”), customs valuation, and import licensing.

The four remaining Tokyo Round agreements were

carried over into the WTO as plurilateral

agreements—the agreements on government

procurement, civil aircraft, bovine meat, and dairy

products.

Agreement on Government

Procurement182

The Agreement on Government Procurement

(1994) was concluded in parallel with the Uruguay

Round negotiations, entering into force on January 1,

1996. The GPA 1994 will co-exist with its

predecessor—the 1979 Agreement on Government

Procurement (GPA 1979) concluded as one of the

Tokyo Round codes.183 By the end of 1996, there

were ten parties to the GPA 1994 (table 2-5). The

agreement will enter into effect for Korea in 1997. The

WTO Committee on Government Procurement

approved the accession of Hong Kong in September

1996 and the agreement will enter into force for Hong

Kong following its submission of its instrument of

ratification. In addition, accession negotiations have

also been completed for Liechtenstein and Singapore,

and Chinese Taipei is in the process of completing

bilateral negotiations with other signatories.184

During the period under review,185 the Committee

on Government Procurement considered modifications

of appendices to the agreement, accessions, procedural

matters, a practical guide to the agreement, a loose-leaf

system for updating the agreement’s appendices, and

statistical reporting under the agreement, as well as

other matters. In late 1995, the EC and the United

States submitted modifications to their appendices that

extended mutual benefits under the GPA to reflect their

bilateral agreement negotiated during the signing of the

URA in Marrakesh in April 1994.

Agreement on Trade in Civil

Aircraft186

During Uruguay Round negotiations through 1993,

as well as thereafter in 1994, efforts to introduce

technical changes that would adapt the 1979

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (Civil Aircraft

Agreement) to the new WTO framework were

unsuccessful. Since the 1995 establishment of the

WTO, the committee overseeing the agreement has

continued to consider ways to bring the 1979

Agreement into conformity under the legal structure

that established the WTO. The application of the

agreement in its present form creates considerable legal

uncertainty, according to the committee chairman,

including the lack of a clear forum for consultations

and effective dispute settlement procedures.187
42

Table 2-5

Members of WTO Plurilateral Agreements

AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

(1994)

Aruba Japan

Canada Korea

EC-15 Norway

Hong Kong Switzerland

Israel United States

AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Austria Luxembourg

Belgium Macau

Bulgaria Netherlands

Canada Norway

Denmark Portugal

EC Romania

Egypt Spain

France Sweden

Germany Switzerland

Ireland United Kingdom

Italy United States

Japan Greece 

(ratification pending)

INTERNATIONAL DAIRY AGREEMENT

Argentina Norway

Bulgaria Romania

EC Switzerland

Japan Uruguay

New Zealand

INTERNATIONAL BOVINE MEAT AGREEMENT

Argentina New Zealand

Australia Norway

Brazil Paraguay

Bulgaria Romania

Canada South Africa

Colombia Switzerland

EC-15 United States

Japan Uruguay

Note.—Membership for Hong Kong in the Government

Procurement Agreement will enter into force 30 days

after the date it deposits its instrumentt of accession

witth WTO Director-General. Membership for Bulgaria

in the Civil Aircraft Agreement entered into force on

Dec. 1, 1996. Membership for Greece in the Civil

Aircraft Agreement is pending ratification.

Source: WTO, WT/L/190, Report (1996) of the

Committee on Government Procurement (1994

Agreement), Oct. 17, 1996; WTO, WT/L/193, Report

(1996) of the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft, Nov.

11, 1996; WTO, WT/L/178, International Dairy

Council—Report to the Singapore Ministerial

Conference, Oct. 11, 1996; WTO, WT/L/179,

International Meat Council—Report to the Singapore

Ministerial Conference, Oct. 11, 1996; WTO, “WTO

Government Procurement Committee Approves

Membership of Hong Kong,” Press Release, PRESS/61, Dec. 5, 1996.

Finding an appropriate solution that would in effect

link the 1979 Civil Aircraft Agreement to the 1995

WTO Agreement and its integrated framework has so

far proved elusive.188 In 1992, the United States won

a dispute settlement case under the 1979 Agreement on

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (Subsidies

Agreement) against the exchange rate guarantee

program for Deutsche Airbus, which the panel found to

be a prohibited export subsidy under the agreement.189

The EC maintained that the case should have been filed

under the 1979 Civil Aircraft Agreement because that

agreement recognizes the specificity of the sector and

provides for comprehensive rules on trade in civil

aircraft, including dispute settlement procedures, and

was further concerned that U.S. recourse to the 1979

Subsidies Agreement might deprive the EC of its rights

under the 1979 Civil Aircraft Agreement.190 The EC

blocked formal adoption of the panel report.191

The issue of how to transfer the 1979 Civil Aircraft

Agreement—with its status quo relation to related

GATT instruments involving subsidies and dispute

settlement procedures—to fit under the framework of

the 1995 WTO Agreement—with its multilateral

application of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures and its integrated dispute

settlement system—has been largely responsible for

the deadlock between the EC and the United States

over how to treat these provisions when revising the

Aircraft Agreement. While no agreement could be

reached in 1996 to resolve these issues, signatories

agreed to continue discussions aimed at reaching a

solution.192 At the end of 1996, there were 22 parties

to the Civil Aircraft Agreement (table 2-5). The

agreement entered into force for Bulgaria on December

1, 1996, whereas Greece is a signatory pending

ratification.

International Dairy Agreement193

The International Dairy Agreement entered into

force on January 1, 1995. The International Dairy

Council overseeing the agreement met twice in 1995

and once in 1996, adopting rules of procedure and

formats for gathering information policy to aid in

reviewing the situation and outlook in the world

market for dairy products. The council agreed to

suspend its provisions to maintain minimum export

prices for dairy products due to the nonparticipation of

some major dairy exporting countries until December

31, 1997. This action prompted the suspension of the

Committee on Certain Milk Products as a result. By

yearend 1996, there were nine parties to the

International Dairy Agreement (table 2-5).
43

International Bovine Meat

Agreement194

The International Bovine Meat Agreement entered

into force on January 1, 1995. The International Meat

Council overseeing the agreement met once both in

1995 and in 1996, adopting rules of procedure as well

as formats for gathering policy and statistical

information. By yearend 1996, there were 16 parties to

the International Bovine Meat Agreement (table 2-5).

The Organization for

Economic Cooperation and

Development

New Trade Agenda Issues

In looking beyond the Uruguay Round, the OECD

ministers decided in the early 1990s to embark on new

work to explore trade issues arising out of the

increasing globalization of business and the world

economy. Beginning with the 1991 and 1992 OECD

communiques, the Ministers began to set out a work

program that involved examination of trade issues of

the 1990s, or so-called new trade agenda issues, that

considered the links and interactions of trade policy

with other areas that previously were considered

largely domestic in nature. The areas pursued initially,

and reaffirmed in the 1993 communique, included

trade policy and its connection to policies related to (1)

the environment, (2) investment, and (3) competition

policy (also known as antitrust policy). Work on these

trade issues of the 1990s is carried out by the OECD

Trade Committee in cooperation with other relevant

OECD committees.

Since then, the work program has evolved with

these initial subjects progressing at different rates and

other subjects being introduced or considered as

possible areas for examination. With the creation of

the WTO in 1995 and its establishment of a Committee

on Trade and Environment, the multilateral focus on

trade and the environment has shifted to a large extent

from the OECD to the WTO although supporting work

continues in the OECD. Work in the OECD on trade

and investment has advanced the furthest where, after

an initial examination, Ministers agreed at the 1995

Ministerial meeting to undertake negotiation of a

multilateral agreement on investment (MAI) scheduled

for completion by their May 1997 meeting. In

contrast, work on trade and competition policy has

proved to date more difficult to find common ground

that would allow more rapid progress. In 1994,

Ministers agreed to add the relation of trade to core

labor standards to the OECD new trade agenda. In

addition, other subjects currently under examination at

the OECD—such as regulatory reform, expanded

market access/openness, and multilateral efforts against

bribery and corruption—may be included formally at

some point under the rubric of the new trade agenda

either as a separate subject or as a related part of an

existing subject given the overlapping elements and

similarities that exist in many of these issues.

Trade and Environment

In 1991, the Joint Experts Group on Trade and

Environment was established to examine the subject of

how to better integrate the two areas so as to ensure the

compatibility of trade and environmental policies and

thus contribute to sustainable development. In June

1993, the joint group presented and OECD ministers

adopted the Procedural Guidelines for Integrating

Trade and Environment Policies.195 In 1995, the group

presented a report that describes the progress made by

members in carrying out these guidelines. The report

also summarizes conclusions by OECD trade and

environment policymakers on preferred strategies to

make the two policies more compatible and mutually

reinforcing. It addresses a number of key issues such

as the effects of environmental policies on

competitiveness, of trade liberalization on the

environment, of economic instruments—such as

subsidies, taxes and charges, deposit refund schemes,

or other adjustments made for environmental

purposes—and of the use of trade measures in

multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).196

In 1996, the group continued a study begun in 1995

concerning the relation between trade and the

environment in the transportation sector, structured in

three parts. First, the study will examine the relation

between international trade and transport, with a focus

on the effects of trade liberalization in general and on

liberalization of the transport sector in particular.

Second, the study will survey the major effects of

international freight movements on the environment.

Third, the study will attempt to measure the effects of

growth in international freight due to trade

liberalization on the environment. The study is due to

be completed in 1997. The group is also well

advanced in its examination of the effects of

ecolabeling programs, focusing on the market impact

and trade effects of such schemes, as well as their

consultation processes, their transparency, and their

environmental effectiveness. In addition, the group has

decided to continue examination of experiences with

trade measures in two MEAs—the Convention on
44

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Basel Convention on

the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes

and their Disposal. These studies will examine the

purposes and effectiveness of trade provisions in these

conventions, how noncompliance and illegal trade is

addressed, and how developing country interests are

affected.

Trade and Investment

Ministers confirmed their intent at the OECD

Ministerial meeting in May 1996, to reach agreement

on a multilateral agreement on investment by their next

Ministerial meeting in 1997. In negotiating a MAI,

OECD members have also entered into a dialogue with

nonmember countries that might be interested in

acceding to a MAI once negotiations are completed.

Multilateral agreement on investment

negotiations

At the May 1996 Ministerial meeting, the

Negotiating Group tasked with developing a MAI

presented ministers with a progress report. Since

beginning talks in September 1995, building blocks of

the agreement have been defined—such as investment

protection, national treatment, most favored nation

(MFN) treatment, and transparency. Mechanisms have

also been outlined to help achieve “standstill” (no new

reservations or restrictions) and “rollback” (relaxation

or liberalization of existing ones) and to resolve

disputes—both state to state and investor to state.

However, negotiations continue on how to realize the

goals of liberalization at a high level, disciplines in

new areas, commitments applicable to all government

levels, and measures taken in the context of regional

economic agreements.197

The negotiating group chairman characterized the

basic framework of the MAI being developed as based

upon the definition of “investment” and “investor,”

saying there was agreement on the need for a broad

definition of “investment” but no agreement yet on the

precise definition of either term. Once agreed, these

definitions will operate through two key channels that

are also focal points of negotiations —the

“pre-investment” phase of investment where the

principle of nondiscrimination will be important, and

the “post-investment” phase where investment

protection disciplines will be important. Binding these

concepts together will be the final dispute settlement

provisions. He further outlined three types of likely

exceptions—

 general exceptions as part of the treaty text

(e.g. national security provisions);

 temporary derogations for balance of

payments reasons (of more importance to

non-OECD members that may join the

MAI under negotiation than to OECD

members); and

 country specific reservations that include

“standstill” and hopefully “rollback”

provisions in effect.198

The negotiating group has set up several drafting

and expert groups to treat various topics—

 Drafting Group 1 on Investment

Protection;

 Drafting Group 2 on Treatment of

Investors and Investment;

 Expert Group 1 on Dispute Settlement and

Geographic Scope;

 Expert Group 2 on Taxation Issues;

 Expert Group 3 on Special Topics;

 Expert Group 4 on Institutional Matters;

and

 Expert Group 5 on Financial Services

Matters.

Trade and Competition

OECD members approved in April 1996 the Joint

Group on Trade and Competition, which held its first

meeting in July. The Joint Group is charged with

strengthening the work previously carried out by

separate meetings of the Working Parties of the Trade

Committee (TC) and of the Competition Law and

Policy Committee (CLP) with the aim to increase the

coherence between the two policies.

Key issues to be examined include—

 Reducing exemptions to the scope and

coverage of competition laws and ensuring

actual enforcement;

 The possible development of core

international competition principles, including transparency and nondiscrimination;

and

 Means to improve international

cooperation among competition authorities, such as by exchange of information

and positive comity, etc.

The two committees reported at the May 1996

OECD ministerial conference that there were three key

problem areas in the interaction of trade and

competition policies—
45

 Anticompetitive private practices may

impede market access as well as

competition (e.g. domestic producers may

use exclusive dealing arrangements to keep

foreign forms out of distribution or sales

channels or may jointly boycott domestic

firms that purchase or distribute imported

products).

 Trade measures may impede competition

as well as block market access (e.g. tariff

peaks, quantitative restrictions, other

nontariff measures, may insulate producers

from competition which in turn may raise

costs to consumers).

 Regulations may frustrate both market

access and competition (e.g. a monopoly

position granted through regulation may be

continued even after its economic

justification is no longer warranted, or

product standards might be used to block

imports).

Both trade and competition officials seek to

enhance consumer welfare through economic

efficiency and greater competition, and both agree that

trade and competition policies can be mutually

reinforcing although trade and competition authorities

sometimes differ on the appropriate role that national

competition policies should play in addressing the

market access concerns of trading partners. Further

work in the OECD will aim at strengthening trade and

competition policies by focusing on the feasibility and

desirability of resolving these problem areas through

means such as enhanced bilateral cooperation,

development of agreed minimum common standards,

or multilateral agreement.199

Trade and Labor

A considerable controversy was generated by the

U.S. request in April 1994 to include trade and labor

standards in the Marrakesh Declaration and the future

work program for the WTO. As a result, the OECD

member countries agreed in May 1994 to include

examination of trade and core labor standards as part of

the OECD work program on trade issues of the 1990s.

In May 1996, a joint report done by the OECD

Trade Committee (TC) and the Committee on

Employment, Labor, and Social Affairs (ELSA)—

accompanied by an analytical study done by the OECD

Secretariat—was issued addressing the links between

trade and labor standards. The report identified the

following core labor standards as those that should

apply as an integral part of human rights (alongside for

example the right to life, freedom of expression, and

others contained in a number of United Nations texts)

in all countries regardless of degree of economic

development—

 Freedom of association;

 Freedom to organize and bargain collectively;

 Elimination of child labor exploitation;

 Elimination of forced labor; and

 Nondiscrimination in employment

The analysis points to the lack of evidence to show

that countries with lower labor standards enjoy better

export performance or that countries with higher labor

standards suffer poorer export performance. Indeed,

contrary to conferring an export advantage, the study

considers that lower labor standards are more apt to

hamper economic efficiency and export growth over

the long run because, for example, child labor or

employment discrimination undermine development of

human capital and productivity growth. Such findings

may go some way to alleviate concerns by developing

countries that enforcement of core standards would

negatively affect their economic performance or their

international competitiveness by undermining their

competitive advantage for producing goods requiring

lower-wage labor.200

The analysis shows that there is a mutually

reinforcing relation between trade liberalization and

improvements in core labor standards and that core

standards are more closely adhered to in sectors

exposed to international competition than in sheltered

sectors. However, although economic development

may lead to improved observance of core labor

standards in particular when supported by

market-oriented reforms, the study finds it is doubtful

that market forces alone will automatically improve

labor standards. Thus, some form of incentives to

promote core standards worldwide might be needed.

These could include making financial assistance to

developing countries contingent on compliance with

core labor standards, educational promotion that could

help reduce child labor exploitation, consumer labeling

that hindered fraud, and investment codes that guide

multinational enterprises to adopt core labor

standards.201

Accessions

During 1996, three new members joined the

OECD, raising to 29 the number of member countries

(table 2-6). Upon completing an examination of a

country’s terms of accession, the OECD issues a

formal invitation to join the OECD and a country

becomes a member when it deposits its instrument of
46

accession to the OECD Convention with the

Government of France, which is the depositary for the

Convention. The new 1996 OECD members, along

with their accession dates, were—

 Hungary—May 7, 1996;

 Poland—November 22, 1996; and

 Korea—December 12, 1996.

In addition, the Russian Federation officially

requested OECD membership on May 20, 1996, and its

request is under consideration.202

Table 2-6

OECD Members (29 as of December 12, 1996)

Australia Hungary Norway

Austria Iceland Poland

Belgium Ireland Portugal

Canada Italy Spain

Czech Republic Japan Sweden

Denmark Korea Switzerland

Finland Luxembourg Turkey

France Mexico United Kingdom

Germany Netherlands United States

Greece New Zealand

Sources: OECD, “Korea Officially Becomes OECD Member,” SG/COM/NEWS(96)117, Dec. 12, 1996; OECD,

“Poland Officially Becomes OECD Member,” SG/COM/NEWS(96)107, Nov. 22, 1996; OECD, “Russian Federation

Requests OECD Membership,” SG/COM/NEWS(96)52, May 21, 1996; and OECD, “Hungary to Become a Member of

OECD,” SG/COM/NEWS(96)29, Mar. 25, 1996. Found at OECD website at http://www.oecd.org.
47

ENDNOTES

1 Reports directly to the Ministerial Conference

when in session.

2 Including its Subcommittee on Least Developed

Countries.

3 Formally, the Agreement Establishing the World

Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”).

4 The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

1994 (“GATT 1994”) includes a number of

understandings on how to interpret certain articles

under the General Agreement, as well as the

Marrakesh Protocol to the GATT 1994 that contains

national country schedules with their individual tariff

and other trade commitments.

5 Concerning antidumping measures.

6 Concerning customs valuation.

7 WTO, “WTO Ministerial Conference - 9-13

December 1996,” WTO website (http://www.wto.org).

8 WTO, “Statement by the Honorable Charlene

Barshefsky, Acting United States Trade

Representative, on behalf of the United States,”

WT/MIN (96)/ST/5, Dec. 9, 1996 (96-5176) and

USTR, “Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky Outlines

Declaration at Singapore WTO Ministerial,” press

release 96-94, Dec. 9, 1996.

9 USTR, “Prepared Statement of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky, Acting United States Trade

Representative, before the Subcommittee on Trade of

the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of

Representatives,” Sept. 11, 1996, p. 14.

10 USTR, “United States Praises Sweeping

Information Technology Agreement, WTO Process,”

press release 96-96, Dec. 13, 1996.

11 WTO, “Ministerial Declaration on Trade in

Information Technology Products,” Singapore, Dec.

13, 1996. The 15 EU members were represented by

the EU.

12 WTO, “Singapore Ministerial Declaration,”

WT/MIN(96)/DEC, Dec. 18, 1996. The Singapore

Ministerial Declaration is reprinted in USTR, 1997

Trade Policy Agenda and 1996 Annual Report, pp.

81-88.

13 USTR, “Prepared Statement of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky, Acting United States Trade

Representative, before the Subcommittee on Trade of

the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of

Representatives,” Sept. 11, 1996, p. 15.

14 Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para. 10.

15 Ibid., para. 11.

16 Ibid., para. 12.

17 For a discussion of developments related to

the ATC in 1996, see ch. 5.

18 WTO, “Press Brief: Textiles,” p. 3, posted on

the WTO website. A U.S. paper examining the

first-stage implementation plans of 5 major importing

countries shows that in the first stage, covering

1995-98, “most exporting Members have not

integrated any meaningful or sensitive products in the

fabric, apparel or made-up groups,” which represent

3 of the 4 major product groups subject to the quota

phase-out (the 4th category is yarn). Communication

from the United States to the Council for Trade in

Goods, “Issues Concerning Market Access and

Circumvention as they Relate to the Implementation

of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,” Sept. 19,

1996.

19 The measure was applied to cotton and

manmade fiber skirts from El Salvador. WTO, “Report

of the Textiles Monitoring Body,” G/L/113, Oct. 4,

1996, p. 13.

20 Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para. 15.

21 Decision on Trade and Environment,

Marrakesh Ministerial, April 1994.

22 WTO, Report (1996) of the Committee on

Trade and the Environment, Nov. 12, 1996 WT/CTE/1

(96-4808), p. 40.

23 USTR, “Trade and Environment,” Singapore

Ministerial Conference briefing book, Nov. 27, 1996.

24 WTO, Report (1996) of the Committee on

Trade and the Environment, Nov. 12, 1996 WT/CTE/1

(96-4808), p. 39, para. 173 and p. 40, para. 174.

25 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Trade and the Environment,” Nov. 12, 1996

WT/CTE/1 (96-4808). A coalition of U.S. industry

associations led by the Grocery Manufacturers’

Association, and the U.S. Council for International

Business, were among the business interests urging

USTR to seek enhanced WTO disciplines on

ecolabeling to counter discriminatory, non-transparent,

and market-inhibiting effects of ecolabeling by U.S.

trading partners, particularly the EU.

26 Ibid., p. 42, para. 185.

27 BNA, “Trade and Environment Committee

Adopts Text for Singapore Meeting,” International

Trade Reporter, Nov. 13, 1996, p. 1730.

28 Singapore Ministerial Declaration, at para. 16.

29 BNA, “U.S. Expects Little on

Trade/Environment in Singapore Ministerial,

Barshefsky Says,” International Trade Reporter, Sept.

20, 1996, p. 1480.

30 USTR, “Trade and Environment,” Singapore

Ministerial Conference briefing book, Nov. 27, 1996.

31 Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para. 17.

32 For a discussion of the outcome of the

negotiations on basic telecommunications, see the

section on the “Council on Trade in Services,” later

in this section.

33 USTR, “United States Praises Sweeping

Information Technology Agreement, WTO Process,”

press release 96-96, Dec. 13, 1996, p. 2.

34 Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para. 19.

35 USTR, “United States Praises Sweeping

Information Technology Agreement, WTO Process,”

press release 96-96, Dec. 13, 1996, p. 2.

36 USTR, “Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky

Outlines Declaration at Singapore WTO Ministerial,”

press release 96-94, Dec. 9, 1996.
48

37 This number is a preliminary ITC estimate

based upon the proposed actual ITA product

coverage. It is compiled by USITC Office of

Industries staff from Elsevier’s World Electronics

Yearbook. The WTO preliminary estimate of ITA

exports is $595 billion but is based on the WTO’s

annual report definition of IT products, which includes

consumer electronics but excludes software.

38 WTO, “Press Brief: Information Technology

Agreement (ITA),” posted on the WTO website.

39 BNA, “U.S., EU Announce Accord to Scrap

Tariffs on Info. Tech Goods; Other Nations to Join,”

Dec. 13, 1996, BNA International Trade Daily.

40 USTR, “United States Praises Sweeping

Information Technology Agreement, WTO Process,”

press release 96-96, Dec. 13, 1996.

41 WTO, ITA Declaration, para. 3.

42 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Info Tech

Agreement: Outcome from WTO Ministerial,”

message reference No. 254990, prepared by the

U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, Dec. 13,

1996.

43 ITA Declaration, para. 2.

44 ITA Declaration, Annex, para. 1.

45 ITA Declaration, para. 1 and paras. 3, 6, and

7 of Annex.

46 USTR, “United States Praises Sweeping

Information Technology Agreement, WTO Process,”

press release 96-96, Dec. 13, 1996.

47 BNA, “Nations Join U.S.-EU Info Tech Pact;

Agreement Could Take Effect Next Year,” BNA

International Trade Daily, Dec. 13, 1996. The article

notes that Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun Microsystems,

Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., Microsoft, Intel, the

Business Software Alliance, and the Coalition of

Service Industries all have issued statements

welcoming the ITA accord.

48 American Electronics Association, informal

transmittal to ITC staff, Jan. 16, 1997.

49 BNA, “U.S. High-Tech Firms to Gain from IT

Accord, but Not for Some Time,” BNA International

Trade Daily, Dec. 27, 1996.

50 Negotiations to conclude the ITA resumed in

Geneva on January 17, 1997. Countries accounting

for some 92 percent of world trade in information

technology products had signed by the end of March

1997 (90 percent or more are required for the

agreement to become operational on July 1, 1997),

including— Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Estonia,

the EU-15, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan,

Korea, Macau, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway,

Romania, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand,

Turkey, and the United States. USTR, “Information

Technology Agreement on Track Toward March 26

Conclusion,” press release 97-21, Mar. 13, 1997.

51 The results of the Uruguay Round

zero-for-zero initiative on pharmaceuticals are

contained in a record of discussion on the treatment

of pharmaceutical products, GATT document L/7430,

Mar. 25, 1994.

52 For example, GATT Schedule, Part I —

Most-Favored-Nation Tariff, Pharmaceutical Appendix.

53 WTO, Committee on Market Access, “Trade in

Pharmaceutical Products,” G/MA/W/10, Oct. 11, 1996,

(96-4185).

54 There are 48 least developed countries

designated by the UN; 25 LLDCs that are WTO

members and 23 LLDCs that are not WTO members,

some of which are in various stages of acceding to

the WTO. In addition to the LLDCs that are by

definition net food importers, there are 15 other

countries that the WTO recognizes as net food

importers, bringing the total to 63. For details, see,

UN, “Committee for Development Planning—Report

on the Thirtieth Session (28 and 29 May 1996),”

E/1996/76, June 21, 1996, Annex IV; WTO,

“Background Information Packet Q&A—Lower-Income

Developing Countries and the WTO,” found at WTO

website http://www.wto.org/wto/Whats_new/qadev.htm

on Dec. 17, 1996; and USTR, “Singapore Agenda for

the Least-Developed Countries,” Singapore Ministerial

Conference briefing book, Annex 2.

55 Several of these issues—such as competition

policy and core labor standards—are far from “new”

and were at one time part of the 1948 Havana

Charter that, had it entered into force, would have

established an organization much like the present

WTO.

56 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para.

4.

57 In 1994, the ILO Governing Body established

a Working Party on the Social Dimension of

Liberalization of International Trade. The Working

Party agreed that there is a set of core standards

that should be adhered to no matter what the level

of development. The standards identified by the

Working Party include those relating to: (1) freedom

of association; (2) right to organize and bargain

collectively; (3) prison labor; (4) forced labor; (5)

discrimination in employment; and (6) discrimination

in pay. USTR, “Trade and Labor Standards,”

Singapore Ministerial Conference briefing book, Nov.

27, 1996.

58 See, for example, USTR, “Remarks by Andrew

Stoler, Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Trade

Representative’s Office in Geneva before the

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions,

Singapore,” Dec. 8, 1996.

59 OECD, Trade, Employment, and Labour

Standards: A Study of Core Workers’ Rights and

International Trade, Paris: OECD, 1996, pp. 11-13.

60 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Singapore Ministerial - Trade and Labor Standards,”

message reference No. Geneva 3493, prepared by

the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, Geneva, May

17, 1996. The text of the U.S. “non-paper” as well

as the remarks of the U.S. delegate when introducing

it at the May 15, 1996 informal heads-of-delegation

meeting are reported therein.

61 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Demarche

Request: WTO Singapore Ministerial Issues,”

message reference No. State 239604, Nov. 19, 1996.

62 USTR, “Prepared Statement of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky, Acting United States Trade

Representative, before the Subcommittee on Trade of

the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of

Representatives,” Sept. 11, 1996, p. 26.
49

63 Although the EC Commission proposed in a

July 24, 1996 communication that the EU support

WTO work in the area, the EU’s General Affairs

Council dropped the issue from guidelines for EU

participation in the SMC due to strong objections

from the United Kingdom. “Commission to Push

WTO Working Group on Social Standards,” European

Report, No. 2151, July 24, 1996, p. V-1 and U.S.

Department of State telegram, “EU GAC Meeting,

Oct. 28: Preparations for WTO Ministerial,” prepared

by U.S. Mission to the European Union, Brussels,

message reference no. Brussels 9392, Oct. 30, 1996.

64 In the case of Japan and Australia, for

example, see “Australia Supports Indonesia’s WTO

Stance,” Xinhua, NewsEDGE/LAN, Oct. 25, 1996 and

BNA, “Quad Partners Propose New Initiatives for

Discussion at December WTO Meeting,” International

Trade Reporter, Apr. 24, 1996, p. 676.

65 USTR, “United States Praises Sweeping

Information Technology Agreement, WTO process,”

press release 96-96, Dec. 13, 1996.

66 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para.

7.

67 WTO, “Press Brief: Regionalism and the

Multilateral Trading System,” p. 1, posted on the

WTO website.

68 USTR, “Regional Trading Agreements,”

Singapore Ministerial Conference briefing book, Nov.

29, 1996.

69 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para.

20.

70 For additional background on this issue, see,

Edward Wilson, “Trade Issues of the 1990s—Part II,”

International Economic Review, USITC, Dec. 1994.

71 Submission by the European Community and

Its Member States, “Draft Ministerial Decision on

Trade and International Dimension of Competition

Rules,” Oct. 4, 1996.

72 For additional background on this issue, see

“Questions to the E.C. on an International Framework

of Competition Rules, by the Republic of Korea,” Oct.

10, 1996, Submission by Japan, “Decision on Trade

and Competition Policy,” Oct. 14, 1996, and “Replies

from the E.C. Commission to Questions from the

U.S.,” and “Replies from the E.C. Commission to

Questions from ASEAN.”

73 BNA, “Presidential Advisory Committee

Opposes WTO Talks on Competition Policy at This

Time,” International Trade Reporter, Sept. 25, 1996,

p. 1476.

74 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para.

20.

75 USTR, “United States Praises Sweeping

Information Technology Agreement, WTO Process,”

press release 96-96, Dec. 13, 1996.

76 Ibid.

77 WTO, “Press Brief: Trade and Investment,” p.

1, WTO website.

78 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para.

22.

79 Statement by Shunpei Tsukahara, “28th

Quadrilateral Trade Ministers’ Meeting - April 19-21,

1996 - Chairman’s Statement,” found at website

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/english/news/press_~1/96

_press/96_07e.htm. See also, U.S. Department of

State telegram, “WTO Singapore Ministerial Initiative

on Government Procurement,” message reference

No. 95668, prepared by the U.S. Department of

State, Washington, DC, May 9, 1996; and BNA,

“Quad Partners Propose New Initiatives for

Discussion at December WTO Meeting,” International

Trade Reporter, Apr. 24, 1996, p. 676.

80 USTR, “Prepared Statement of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky, Acting United States Trade

Representative, before the Subcommittee on Trade of

the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of

Representatives,” Sept. 11, 1996, p. 25.

81 U.S. Department of State, “WTO Singapore

Ministerial Initiative on Government Procurement,”

message reference No. 95668, prepared by the U.S.

Department of State, Washington, DC, May 9, 1996.

82 USTR, “Transparency in Government

Procurement,” Singapore Ministerial Conference

briefing book, Nov. 27, 1996.

83 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para.

8.

84 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, para.

6.

85 EU, “The Outcome of the WTO Ministerial In

Singapore,” European Union News, Dec. 13, 1996,

No. 74/96.

86 WTO, “General Council—Annual Report

(1996),” WT/GC/7, Nov. 20, 1996.

87 WTO, “Membership of the World Trade

Organization,” WT/L/113/Rev.5, Nov. 15, 1996; and

WTO, “WTO membership,” found at WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/memtab2_wpf.html.

88 WTO, “News Briefs—Working Party on China,”

Focus, No. 10, May 1996, p. 12.

89 USTR, “Status of WTO Accessions (as of

11-22-96),” 1996 WTO Ministerial Conference,

Singapore, Dec. 9-13, 1996, briefing book, sec. G1.

The Working Party met Mar. 6, 1997 to take stock of

its work. U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Working Party on the Accession of China,” message

reference No. 765, prepared by the U.S. Mission to

the United Nations, Geneva, Feb. 10, 1997.

90 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Regional Trade Agreements to the General Council,”

Nov. 6, 1996.

91 Under GATT 1994 Article XXIV (Customs

Unions and Free Trade Areas).

92 Under GATS Article V (Economic Integration).

93 Under the Decision of 28 November 1979 on

Differential and More Favorable Treatment,

Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing

Countries (the “Enabling Clause”) that exempts

developed country WTO members from their MFN

obligations in order to provide special and differential

treatment to developing country members.

94 For more details, see WTO, “Committee on

Regional Trade Arrangements,” Annual Report—1996,

vol. 1 (Geneva: 1996), pp. 141-146.
50

95 WTO, “General Council—Body on Regional

Trade Established,” Focus, No. 8, Jan.-Feb. 1996, p.

4.

96 USTR, section IV, “Regional Trade

Agreements,” Singapore Ministerial Conference

briefing book.

97 WTO, “Dispute Settlement Body—Annual

Report (1996),” WT/DSB/8, Oct. 28, 1996.

98 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. See WTO website for summary of current

WTO disputes.

99 For more details, see U.S. International Trade

Commission, The Year in Trade: Operation of the

Trade Agreements Program, 47th Report, 1995,

USITC publication 2971, p. 16.

100 For more details, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 47th Report, 1995, USITC publication

2971, p. 16.

101 WTO, “Dispute Settlement—United

States—Standards for Reformulated and

Conventional Gasoline,” Focus, No. 11, June-July

1996, p. 3.

102 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. The arbitrator’s report was circulated to

members on Feb. 14, 1997, finding that the

reasonable period for implementation was 15 months.

103 WTO, “Developing countries are becoming

active users of WTO dispute-settlement rules - Textile

products,” Focus, No. 9, Mar.-Apr. 1996, pp. 1-2.

104 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. The Appellate Body’s report was circulated to

members on Feb. 10, 1997, upholding the panel

report regarding the particular point in question. The

Appellate Body report and the panel report as

adjusted were adopted on Feb. 25, 1997.

105 WTO, “Developing Countries Are Becoming

Active Users of WTO Dispute-Settlement

Rules—Desiccated Coconut,” Focus, No. 9, Mar.-Apr.

1996, pp. 1-2.

106 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. The Appellate Body’s report was circulated to

members on Feb. 21, 1997, upholding the panel

report. The Appellate Body report and the panel

report were adopted on Feb. 21, 1997.

107 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. A panel was established on Apr. 17, 1996.

On Jan. 6, 1997, the panel found that the safeguard

measure imposed by the United States violated the

provisions of the Textile Agreement. On Feb. 24,

1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain

interpretations of the panel.

108 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. A panel was established on May 8, 1996.

The complainants allege that the EU regime

concerning bananas is inconsistent with GATT

Articles I, II, III, X, XI, and XII, as well as provisions

of the Import Licensing, Agriculture, TRIMs

Agreements, as well as the GATS.

109 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. A panel was established on May 20, 1996,

and on Oct. 16, 1996, for the U.S. and Canadian

complaints, respectively. The complainants allege

that measures taken by the EU concerning hormones

are inconsistent with GATT Articles III or XI, as well

as provisions of the SPS, TBT, and Agriculture

Agreements.

110 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. A panel was established on June 19, 1996.

On Jan. 16, 1997, the parties involved received the

panel’s interim report, which found that Canada’s

preferential tax and postage treatment of

Canadian-origin periodicals were inconsistent with

GATT rules. BNA, “Canada Weighs Response to

Ruling by WTO Against Magazine Tax Policy,” BNA

International Trade Daily, Jan. 22, 1997, art. No.

40221002.

111 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. A panel was established on Oct. 16, 1996.

On Dec. 18, 1996, the United States and Japan

agreed to the three members comprising the dispute

panel. BNA, “U.S., Japan Agree to Members for

Panel in Film Dispute Settlement,” BNA International

Trade Daily, Dec. 19, 1996, art. No. 33541002. The

U.S. film case against Japan is discussed in greater

detail in ch. 4.

112 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. A panel was established on Nov. 20, 1996.

U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba are discussed

in greater detail in ch. 6. The European reaction to

the sanctions is discussed in ch. 4.

113 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” found at the WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm, Mar. 11,

1997. A panel was established on Nov. 20, 1996.

114 WTO, “Dispute Settlement Body—Annual

Report (1996),” WT/DSB/8, Oct. 28, 1996, p. 17; and

WTO, “Procedures for the Circulation and

Derestriction of WTO Documents - Decision adopted

by the General Council on 18 July 1996,”

WT/L/160/Rev.1, July 26, 1996.

115 WTO, “Trade Policy Review

Mechanism—Report to the Singapore Ministerial

Conference WT/TPR/27, Oct. 28, 1996;” WTO,

“Annex II—Trade Policy Review Body—Concluding

remarks by the Chair of the Trade Policy Review

Body,” Annual Report—1996 (WTO: Geneva, 1996),

pp. 168-189; and WTO, list of TPRM reports issued

by the WTO Secretariat.
51

116 For more details, see WTO, “Trade Policy

Review Mechanism,” Annual Report—1996, vol. 1

(Geneva: 1996), p. 139.

117 WTO, “Report of the Council for Trade in

Goods to the General Council,” G/L/134, Nov. 5,

1996.

118 WTO, “Report of the Market Access

Committee,” G/L/132, Nov. 4, 1996.

119 WTO, “Report of the Committee on

Agriculture,” G/L/131, Nov. 7, 1996.

120 WTO, “Report of the Committee on Sanitary

and Phytosanitary Measures,” G/L/118, Oct. 15,

1996.

121 WTO, “Report of the Textiles Monitoring

Body,” G/L/113, Oct. 4, 1996.

122 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, Dec.

13, 1996, par. 15.

123 WTO, “Report of the Committee on Technical

Barriers to Trade,” G/L/122, Oct. 28, 1996.

124 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,” G/L/126,

Oct. 28, 1996.

125 Data listing 1996 notifications of countervailing

duty actions reported by signatories to the WTO

Committee on subsidies and Countervailing Measures

were not available prior to publication of this report.

Notifications reported for 1996 will be published in

the USITC’s International Economic Review in

Summer, 1997.

126 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Anti-dumping Practices,” G/L/123, Oct. 29, 1996.

127 Data listing 1996 notifications of antidumping

actions reported by signatories to the WTO

Committee on Antidumping practices were not

available prior to publication of this report.

Notifications reported for 1996 will be published in

the USITC’s International Economic Review in

Summer, 1997.

128 WTO, “Report of the Committee on Customs

Valuation to the Council for Trade in Goods,”

G/L/121, Oct. 29, 1996.

129 WTO, “Report of the Committee on Rules of

Origin,” G/L/119, Oct. 18, 1996.

130 WTO, “Report of the Committee on Import

Licensing,” G/L/127, Oct. 30, 1996.

131 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Trade-Related Investment Measures,” G/L/133, Nov.

1, 1996.

132 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Safeguards,” G/L/129, Oct. 29, 1996.

133 WTO, “Dispute Settlement—Preshipment

Inspection Body Becomes Operational,” Focus, No.

11, June-July 1996, pp. 5-6.

134 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Working Party on

State Trading Enterprises,” G/L/128, Oct. 28, 1996.

135 WTO, “Report of the Working Group on

Notification Obligations and Procedures,” G/L/112,

Oct. 7, 1996.

136 WTO, “Council for Trade in Services—Report

to the General Council,” S/C/3, Nov. 6, 1996.

137 Before May 1996, the Negotiating Group on

Basic Telecommunications.

138 The Treaty of European Union (the so-called

Maastricht Treaty) went into effect Nov. 1, 1993.

References to the European Communities (EC), the

European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC),

European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM),

and the European Economic Community (EEC), or

“European Community,” have since adopted the form

“European Union” (EU). The legal obligations of the

EU, however, remain the responsibility of the

Commission of the European Communities (or “EC

Commission”), and references to the EU prior to the

Maastricht Treaty may be noted as EC followed by

the number of member states at the time, such as

EC-6, EC-9, EC-12.

139 With the completion of the Interim Agreement

in Financial Services by July 1995, the Agreement on

Movement of Natural Persons in July 1995,

agreement in June 1996 to postpone further

negotiations on maritime transport services until

2000, and the Feb. 1997 conclusion of the

Agreement on Basic Telecommunications, the

mandates for their respective negotiating groups and

supporting committees (such as the Committee on

Trade in Financial Services) have ceased to operate

or have become dormant until new negotiations and

possibly new mandates are agreed.

140 Scheduled to enter into effect by January 1,

1998.

141 Scheduled to begin within two years of the

entry into force of the WTO Agreement, i.e. by Jan.

1, 1997. Ongoing work under GATS Article XIII:2 on

government procurement in services is expected to

be addressed in parallel with that on goods, to which

end ministers at the Dec. 1996 Singapore conference

directed the establishment of a working group on

transparency in government procurement. U.S.

Department of State telegram,“Instructions for WTO

heads of delegation meeting on government

procurement initiative,” message reference No.

126703, prepared by the U.S. Department of State,

Washington DC, June 19, 1996; and WTO,

Singapore Ministerial Declaration, Dec. 13, 1996, par.

21.

142 Scheduled to begin at a time set under a

work program to be developed.

143 Singapore Ministerial Declaration, Dec. 13,

1996, par. 17.

144 By early November 1996, the following 29

countries had accepted the Second Protocol—

Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic,

Dominican Republic, Egypt, EU-15, Hong Kong,

Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Kuwait,

Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan,

Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Slovak Republic,

South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey,

Venezuela.

145 WTO, “The WTO Negotiations on Basic

Telecommunications - Summary,”

http://www.wto.org/wto/whats_new/summary.htm, Feb.

20, 1997.

146 For a discussion of the basic

telecommunication negotiations prior to Apr. 30,
52

1996, see USITC, “Basic Telecommunication Service

Negotiations in the World Trade Organization:

Impetus, Offers, and Prospects,” Industry, Trade, and

Technology Review, USITC publication 3017, Jan.

1997.

147 GATT Secretariat, The Results of the

Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations:

The Legal Texts, p. 461.

148 Ibid., p. 360.

149 Foreign entities may indirectly own 100

percent of U.S. carriers through establishment of a

U.S. holding company. There is a limit of 20 percent

on direct ownership.

150 Value-added telecommunication services

include facsimile transmission, electronic mail, voice

mail, on-line information and data base retrieval,

on-line processing, electronic data interchange, and

other services that add value to telecommunication

services beyond the transmission of voice or data

signals.

151 Leased lines are lines dedicated to users

requiring exclusive or continuous capacity for rapid

voice and, principally, data transmission. Because

leased lines are one of the integral building blocks of

private networks and entities providing value-added

services, their availability and pricing significantly

influence the competitive position of the lessee.

152 Interconnection is the technical interface

between two networks, such as that between a

private network constructed by private firms and the

public switched network operated by the state

monopoly. The terms and conditions of

interconnection significantly influence the competitive

position of the firm seeking connection to the public

switched network.

153 Universal service requirements generally

specify that every citizen should have basic

telecommunication service at affordable prices.

154 USTR, “Testimony of Ambassador Jeffrey M.

Lang, before the U.S. House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous

Materials,” May 9, 1996.

155 Notable EU member states’ investment

restrictions include a 20 percent foreign equity limit

on radio-based service by France and a 25 percent

foreign equity limit by Portugal.

156 The liberalization is to be implemented on a

delayed basis by Spain in December 1998 and by

Portugal and Greece in 2003.

157 NTT is a former government monopoly and is

Japan’s largest domestic carrier. It remains

two-thirds owned by the government, and currently

has 3 percent foreign investment.

158 KDD is Japan’s largest overseas carrier and

has close ties to the Government of Japan and to

NTT.

159 USTR, “Statement of Ambassador Charlene

Barshefsky on Basic Telecom Negotiations,” press

release, Feb. 15, 1997, Washington, DC.

160 Although the United States regulates both

DTH and DBS as basic telecommunications, other

trading partners consider these satellite services as

broadcasting. U.S. Department of State telegram,

message reference No. 779, “Statement by

Ambassador Jeffery Lang before the Group on Basic

Telecommunications Senior Officials meeting at the

World Trade Organization,” prepared by the U.S.

Mission to the United Nations, Geneva, Feb. 11,

1997.

161 USTR, “Statement of Ambassador Charlene

Barshefsky on Basic Telecom Negotiations,” press

release, Feb. 15, 1997, Washington, DC.

162 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC

staff, Hong Kong, Jan. 30, 1997, and New Delhi,

India, Feb. 2, 1997.

163 Because the nature of the accounting rate

system involves differential rates, the Group on Basic

Telecommunication came to the understanding that

the application of accounting rates would not give

rise to action by members under dispute settlement

under the WTO until 2000.

164 “Malaysia Proposes Long-Awaited Telecoms

Offer,” 1997 Comtex Scientific Corporation,

NewsEDGE/LAN, Feb. 7, 1997.

165 USTR, press statement by Don Abelson, Feb.

21, 1997, Washington, DC.

166 See, for example, U.S. Department of State

telegram, “Demarche to Argentina on GBT,” message

reference No. 20987, prepared by the U.S.

Department of State, Feb. 5, 1997.

167 Estimate from the ITU database on World

Telecommunication Indicators.

168 Ibid.

169 Only Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, and Turkey did

not improve their Apr. 30, 1996 offers.

170 USTR, “Statement of Ambassador Charlene

Barshefsky on Basic Telecom Negotiations,” press

release, Feb. 15, 1997, Washington, DC.

171 USTR, “Foreign Investment,” “Market Access

for Satellite Service Suppliers,” “Regulatory

Principles,” and “International Services and Facilities,”

electronic mail, Feb. 25, 1997.

172 “Telecommunications: Throwing Open the

Markets,” 1997 Comtex Scientific Corporation,

NewsEDGE/LAN, Feb. 11, 1997.

173 Robert S. Greenberger and Gautan Naik,

“Global Telecommunications Pact Opens Lines to

Growing Markets for U.S. firms,” The Wall Street

Journal, Feb. 18, 1997, p. A3, A16.

174 WTO, “News Briefs—Negotiations on Maritime

Transport Suspended,” Focus, No. 11, June-July

1996, p. 15.

175 WTO, Singapore Ministerial Declaration, Dec.

13, 1996, par. 17.

176 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Council for

TRIPS,” IP/C/8, Nov. 6, 1996.

177 TRIPs article 70 (Protection of Existing

Subject Matter) requires, under section 70.8, that

members with no patent protection for pharmaceutical

and agricultural chemical products make available

from the entry into force of the WTO Agreement

(Jan. 1, 1995) a means by which applications for

such patents may be filed toward such time as when

patent protection becomes available for these
53

products—that is, a “mailbox” where such

applications can be registered in advance of being

granted patent protection—and that, under section

70.9, exclusive marketing rights shall be granted for

a 5-year period following marketing approval for

these products.

178 USTR, “Update: Developments in U.S.

International Trade Dispute Settlement—November 1,

1996,” pp. 8, 9.

179 For more details, see WTO, “Cooperation with

Other International Organizations,” Annual

Report—1996 (WTO: Geneva, 1996), pp. 156-161.

180 USTR, “Update: Developments in U.S.

International Trade Dispute Settlement—November 1,

1996,” p. 7.

181 USTR, “USTR-Designate Barshefsky

Announces Resolution of WTO Dispute With Japan

on Sound Recordings,” press release 97-04, Jan. 24,

1997.

182 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Government Procurement (1994 Agreement),”

WT/L/190, Oct. 17, 1996.

183 The United States will terminate its

participation in the GPA 1979 on entry into force of

the GPA 1994. Uruguay Round Agreements Act

Statement of Administrative Action, p. 368; published

in H. Doc. 103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, 1994,

at p. 1037.

184 WTO, “WTO Government Procurement

Committee Approves Membership of Hong Kong,”

press release PRESS/61, Dec. 5, 1996; and WTO,

“Government Procurement—Opening a Huge Market

to International Competition,” Focus, No. 8, Jan.-Feb.

1996, p. 8.

185 Including the period under the Interim

Committee.

186 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Trade in Civil Aircraft,” WT/L/193, Nov. 11, 1996.

187 WTO, “Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft,”

Annual Report—1996 (WTO: Geneva, 1996), p. 151.

188 Ibid., p. 151.

189 USTR, “EC—Government Support for Airbus,”

1993 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign

Trade Barriers (USTR: Washington, 1993), pp. 92-93.

190 GATT, “Subsidies Panel to Examine US/EC

Airbus Dispute,” Focus, No. 80, April 1991, pp. 1, 8.

191 USTR, “EC—Government Support for Airbus”,

1993 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign

Trade Barriers (USTR: Washington, 1993), p. 93.

192 WTO, “Report (1996) of the Committee on

Trade in Civil Aircraft,” WT/L/193, Nov. 11, 1996, par.

6.

193 WTO, “International Dairy Council—Report to

the Singapore Ministerial Conference,” WT/L/178,

Oct. 11, 1996.

194 WTO, “International Meat Council—Report to

the Singapore Ministerial Conference,” WT/L/179,

Oct. 11, 1996.

195 For more details, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1993, USITC publication 2769, pp.

73-74.

196 Dale Andrew, “Trade and Environment in the

OECD,” OECD Observer, special edition, Dec. 1996,

p. 33.

197 OECD, “Multilateral Agreement on

Investment—progress Report by the MAI Negotiating

Group,” OCDE/GD(96)78, 1996, and OECD, OECD

Letter, vol. 5/6, July 1996. p. 8.

198 U.S. Department of State telegram, “OECD:

Multilateral Agreement on Investment

(MAI)—Chairman Briefs the Council on Progress

Thus Far,” message reference No. 09945, prepared

by U.S. Embassy, Paris, May 7, 1996.

199 OECD, “Strengthening the coherence

between trade and competition policies,”

OCDE/GD(96)90, 1996, and OECD, OECD Letter,

Vol. 5. No. 8, Oct. 1996. pp.7- 8.

200 OECD, “Promoting labour standards urged by

OECD ministers,” OECD Letter, Vol. 5, No. 6, July

1996, pp. 6-7.

201 Raymond Torres, “Labour Standards and

International Trade,” OECD Observer, special edition,

Dec. 1996. pp. 31-32.

202 OECD, “Russian Federation Requests OECD

Membership,” SG/COM/NEWS(96)52, May 21, 1996.
54
55

CHAPTER 3

Regional Trade Activities

As in recent years, regional trade initiatives were

an important component of U.S. trade policy during

1996. The main regional trade agreement with U.S.

participation in 1996 was the North American

Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The United States

also participated in ongoing discussions among two

other regional groupings—the Free Trade Area of the

Americas (FTAA) and the Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation (APEC) forum. NAFTA, the primary

vehicle for conduct of U.S. trade relations with Mexico

and Canada, concluded its third year of operation in

1996. Hemispheric trade ministers met in 1996 to

consider how to begin negotiating an FTAA. The

United States and other members of APEC took steps

to begin implementing commitments to attain

liberalized trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific

region by 2020.

NAFTA

Implemented on January 1, 1994, NAFTA links the

United States, Mexico, and Canada in a free trade

agreement resulting in the immediate elimination of

tariffs on more than one-half of U.S. imports from

Mexico and more than one-third of U.S. exports to

Mexico.1 NAFTA also addresses a variety of

non-tariff barriers, commits each party to high levels of

protection for foreign investors and owners of

intellectual property rights, liberalizes trade in services,

and creates dispute settlement mechanisms. NAFTA

was accompanied by side agreements on

environmental and labor cooperation, the first U.S.

trade accord to be formally linked to such

commitments.

NAFTA is overseen by the Free Trade

Commission, made up of the trade ministers from each

country.2 Day-to-day operation of the agreement and

technical matters are handled by various committees

and working groups composed of trade and other

relevant officials from the three governments. This

section first discusses U.S. trade with Canada and

Mexico in 1996. It then reviews 1996 activities under

NAFTA and its accompanying agreements on labor

and the environment. Issues that were primarily

trilateral in nature or that, though bilateral in origin,

had a strong NAFTA dimension, are discussed below,

with issues presented in the order they are treated in

the NAFTA agreement itself. Issues that are primarily

bilateral in nature or that, though having a NAFTA

dimension, had a major impact on bilateral trade

relations, are covered in Chapter 4 of this report.

NAFTA Trade

Trade among the three NAFTA partners accounts

for more than 46 percent of total worldwide trade of

NAFTA countries.3 In 1996, combined U.S.

merchandise exports to Canada and Mexico made up

30 percent of total U.S. exports worldwide, while

combined U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico

accounted for nearly 30 percent of all U.S. imports.4

The U.S. merchandise trade balance with NAFTA

partners Canada and Mexico deteriorated during 1996.

The combined U.S. trade deficit was $56.7 billion in

1996, versus a deficit of $24.6 billion during 1994,

NAFTA’s first year. However, Mexico’s economic

recovery and increased U.S. exports to Mexico in

1996, following a year of declining exports in 1995,

helped slow the rate of growth of the U.S. trade deficit

with the NAFTA partners. U.S. two-way trade (the

sum of exports plus imports) with Canada and Mexico

has risen from $330.1 billion during NAFTA’s first

year to $404.3 billion in 1996 (table 3-1). The

following sections highlight key trends in trade flows

among the NAFTA partners during 1996.

Canada

The United States and Canada are each other’s

main trading partner, and growth in trade under the

NAFTA has been significant. Following annual

increases in exports of 12.8 and 9.3 percent

respectively during the first two years of NAFTA, U.S.
56

Table 3-1

U.S. Trade with NAFTA partners, 1994-96

(Billion dollars)

NAFTA

 Year Partner Exports Imports

Trade Balance

(Exports –

Imports)

Two-way trade

(Exports +

Imports)

1994 Canada 103.6 128.8 -25.1 232.4

Mexico 49.1 48.6 0.5 97.7

Canada and Mexico 152.7 177.4 -24.6 330.1

1995 Canada 113.3 144.9 -31.6 258.2

Mexico 44.9 61.7 -16.8 105.7

Canada and Mexico 157.3 206.6 -49.3 363.9

1996 Canada 119.1 156.3 -37.2 275.4

Mexico 54.7 74.2 -19.5 128.9

Canada and Mexico 173.8 230.5 -56.7 404.3

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

merchandise exports to Canada increased 5.2 percent

in 1996 (figure 3-1). Machinery and transport

equipment accounted for more than one-half of this

entire trade flow (figure 3-2). The top 25 export

commodities accounted for approximately one-third of

total U.S. exports to Canada. Nine of these products

were in the automotive category, the area of major

commerce between the two trading partners.

Figure 3-1

U.S. trade with Canada: Exports, imports, and trade balance, 1992-96





























 –40

0

40

80

120

160

 

Billion dollars

$83.2 $91.9 $103.6 $113.3 $119.1

$98.2 $110.5 $128.8 $144.9 $156.3 -$15.0 -$18.6 -$25.1 -$31.6 -$37.2

Exports

Imports

Balance

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
57























































U.S. Exports = 100%

Note.—Because of rounding figures may not add up to totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Manufactured goods

Machinery/equipment

$16.1 (13.5%)

Chemicals

Food

$11.3 (9.5%)

$64.8 (54.4%)

$5.9 (4.9%)

Misc. mfg. articles

$11.9 (10.0%)

Fuel/raw materials

$5.6 (4.7%)

All other goods

$3.6 (3.0%)







 































U.S. Imports = 100%

Manufactured goods

Machinery/equipment

$25.8 (16.5%)

Chemicals

Food

$8.5 (5.4%)

$67.3 (43.1%)

$7.8 (5.0%)

Misc. mfg. articles

$9.0 (5.8%)

Fuel/raw materials

$28.1 ($18.0%) All other goods

$9.7 (6.2%)

(Billion dollars)

Figure 3-2

U.S. trade with Canada: Exports and imports, by product sectors, 1996
58

In recent years, the growth of U.S. merchandise

imports from Canada has outpaced that of U.S. exports.

This trend continued in 1996, when imports increased

by 7.9 percent. Machinery and transport equipment

again accounted for the most significant (43 percent)

commodity trade flow (figure 3-2). Other

manufactured goods were the next largest

category—16 percent. The greatest amount of trade

takes place in the automotive sector, reflecting the

integration of the North American motor vehicle

industry.

Mexico

Bilateral trade

The United States accounted for over four-fifths of

Mexico’s exports and some three-fourths of its imports

in 1996. Mexico ranks as the third-largest U.S. trading

partner, in both exports and imports, after Canada and

Japan. NAFTA has generally boosted U.S.-Mexican

bilateral trade. U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico

rose to a record $54.7 billion in 1996. The 24-percent

increase of this trade flow in 1996 contrasts sharply

with the 10-percent decline recorded in 1995 (figure

3-3). U.S. exports to Mexico in 1996 rebounded in all

major product categories from their unusually low

1995 levels to record high values in most (table A-10).

Machinery and transportation equipment was the

largest export category, with motor vehicle parts being

the predominant items in the group (table A-11), and

accounted for almost one-half of total U.S. exports to

Mexico (figure 3-4.) Food and live animal exports

were the fastest-growing category, up 66 percent

during the year (table A-10). As drought destroyed

crops in Northern Mexico, U.S. exports of corn almost

tripled, and exports of soybeans almost doubled

compared with 1995 (table A-11).

Figure 3-3

U.S. trade with Mexico: Exports, imports, and trade balance, 1992-96

   













–20 

–10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

 

Billion dollars

$39.6 $40.3 $49.1 $44.9 $54.7

$33.9 $38.7 $48.6 $61.7 $74.2  $5.7 $1.6 $0.5 -$16.8 -$19.5 

Exports

Imports

Balance

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
59





















































Note.—Because of rounding figures may not add up to totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Manufactured goods

Machinery/equipment

$8.0 (14.6%)

Chemicals

Food

$5.1 (9.3%)

$25.1 (45.8%)

$4.0 (7.3%)

Misc. mfg. articles

$6.3 (11.5%)

Fuel/raw materials

$4.0 (7.3%)

All other goods

$2.3 (4.2%)





























Manufactured goods 

Machinery/equipment

$5.6 (7.6%)

Chemicals

Food

$1.6 (2.2%)

$40.5 (54.8%)

$4.2 (5.7%)

Misc. mfg. articles

$10.2 (13.8%)

Fuel/raw materials

$8.9 (12.0%) All other goods

$2.9 (3.9%)

(Billion dollars)

Figure 3-4

U.S. trade with Mexico: Exports and imports, by product sectors, 1996

U.S. Exports = 100%

U.S. Imports = 100%
60

U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico rose by

approximately 20 percent in 1996 to $74.2 billion

(figure 3-3). Machinery and transportation items

accounted for more than one-half of this trade flow

(figure 3-4). Most leading U.S. import items from

Mexico, many of them motor vehicles or parts in the

dominant machinery category, were up in 1996 (table

A-12). The rise in crude oil imports, the traditionally

leading import item from Mexico, reflected both

predominantly higher prices and larger volume.

Notable also is the continued increase in imports of

U.S. apparel from Mexico, reflecting duty-free entry of

garments sewn from U.S.-cut fabric under

NAFTA-created tariff provision 9802.00.90. Imports

of men’s and boys’ trousers, one of the leading U.S.

import items from that country, were up by nearly 26

percent. Moreover, women’s and girls’ trousers

became a leading item in 1996 (table A-12). During

the year, Mexico became the world’s largest clothing

exporter by volume, displacing China.5 Most U.S.

apparel imports from Mexico enter under production

sharing arrangements (discussed below).

Production sharing

Production sharing refers to foreign processing or

assembly of goods made of U.S.-origin materials or

components and return of the finished goods to the

United States.6 The facilities involved in production

sharing in Mexico have generally been the

“maquiladoras”—in-bond production units established

since 1965 under Mexico’s Border Industrialization

Program.7 The bulk of these imports originates in the

United States as the maquilas use only an estimated 2

percent of their supplies from domestic sources.8

U.S. exports to production-sharing operations

accounted for 28.1 percent of overall U.S. exports to

Mexico in 1996, valued at approximately $15.4 billion

(table 3-2).9 U.S. imports of shared products increased

from $25.0 billion in 1995 to $27.9 billion in 1996, as

the depreciation of the peso improved

price-competitiveness and spawned a boom in

maquiladora production.10 However, the proportion of

shared-production imports in total imports from

Mexico has declined—from 49.1 percent in 1994 to

37.6 percent in 1996. This decline is due to both a

shift from entry under the production sharing

provisions of HTS heading 9802 to entry of assembled

products under NAFTA, and to a rise in U.S. imports

from Mexico, outside of production sharing provisions.

In October 1996, the Government of Mexico

modified the maquiladora program to simplify

administrative procedures, provide incentives for the

use of more Mexican and other North American

content in production, and promote greater integration

of the maquiladora into the Mexican economy.

Mexico’s incentives and other special provisions for

maquiladoras are scheduled to be eliminated by

2001.11

Canadian-Mexican Trade

In 1996, Canadian imports from Mexico rose 12.2

percent to $4.3 billion. Leading Canadian imports

from Mexico consisted of fruits and vegetables,

electrical machinery, motor vehicles, furniture, mineral

fuels, and organic chemicals. Canadian exports to

Mexico increased by 2.6 percent in 1996, rising to $0.8

billion. The leading Canadian exports to Mexico

include cereals, oil seed, wood pulp, machinery and

mechanical appliances, and motor vehicles. Canada’s

bilateral trade deficit with Mexico continued to rise,

registering over $3.5 billion in 1996 (figure 3-5).

NAFTA Implementation

NAFTA’s various trade liberalization and

facilitation commitments continued to be implemented

in 1996. Mexico continued to change its trade and

investment regime as a result of NAFTA disciplines in

areas such as government procurement, investment

performance requirements, and trade in services.12 In

addition, Mexico has undertaken additional unilateral

liberalization since NAFTA’s inception, permitting

foreign participation in sectors such as railroads,

seaports, airports and greater competition in

telecommunications, natural gas distribution, and

financial markets.13 However, the United States has

expressed dissatisfaction with certain aspects of

Mexico’s NAFTA implementation, notably in the areas

of standards, intellectual property, and small package

delivery services.14 The status of implementation is

reviewed below.

Tariffs

The phasing-out of tariffs (“staging”) by the three

NAFTA partners proceeded on agreed schedules in

1996. Tariffs on qualifying U.S.-Canadian trade will

generally be eliminated by 1998, the date agreed in the

1988 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement; remaining

tariffs on U.S.-Mexico trade will be eliminated by

2008. With implementation of the third annual tariff

reduction on January 1, 1996, Mexico’s average tariff

rate on NAFTA qualifying U.S. goods was lowered to

an estimated 5.1 percent ad valorem, down from the

pre-NAFTA average of 10 percent.15 On January 1,
on sharing trade, 1991-96

(Million dollars)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

xico 30,445.1 33.934.6 38,667.7 48,605.3 61,721.0 74,179.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ion sharing provisions:1

14,334.3 16,502.0 18,992.3 23,068.2 24,962.3 27,924.3 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s 47.1 48.6 49.1 47.5 40.4 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

-production imports:

7,254.8 8,691.9 9,887.0 11,608.4 12,832.8 15,355.5 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

duction imports 50.6 52.7 52.1 50.3 51.4 55.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s 23.8 25.6 25.6 23.9 20.8 20.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 both NAFTA and

visions:2

NA3 NA3 NA3 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,504.5 16,721.1 20,,388.3

NA3 NA3 NA3 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,215.1 8,674.4 10,848.9

o 32,279.2 39,604.9 40,265.5 49,136.0 44,880.8 54,685.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s to maquiladoras 7,254.1 8,687.9 9,867.6 11,591.6 12,432.0 15,366.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s 22.5 22.0 24.6 23.6 28.6 28.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ns of HTS chapter 98 are 9802.00.5010, 9802.00.60, 9802.00.80, and 9802.00.90. 

Mexico declare eligibility for preferential tariff treatment under both NAFTA and chapter 98; such entries are reported in the totals

oduction sharing provisions (and U.S.-made components in shared production imports) as well as imports under NAFTA reported

FTA entered into force on Jan. 1, 1994.

 International Trade Commission staff from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
62

Figure 3-5

Canada-Mexico, merchandise trade, 1995-96























 

Millions of U.S. dollars

$833.3 $854.9

$3,912.0 $4,389.4  -$3,078.7 -$3,534.5

Canadian exports

Imports

Balance

1995 1996

6,000.0

4,000.0

2,000.0

0.0

-2,000.0

-4,000.0

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

1996, technical revisions to NAFTA tariff staging took

effect in response to changes in the international HS

tariff nomenclature, so that previously agreed

concessions would apply to new tariff categories.

During the tariff phase-out period, some products are

subject to tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). Problems in

Mexico’s administration of TRQs have been

experienced by some U.S. agricultural producers.16

The tariff increases announced by Mexico on May

30, 1995 on imports of 502 categories of footwear,

leather, and textile and apparel products remained in

effect in 1996. U.S. exports meeting NAFTA’s rules of

origin are not subject to the higher rates and are

effectively enjoying a wider margin-of-preference in

the Mexican market over other foreign suppliers of

these products.17

In response to the U.S. safeguard action imposing

tariff rate quotas on broomcorn brooms from Mexico

announced on November 28, 1996, Mexico announced

on December 12, 1996 that it was raising tariffs from 2

to 20 percent ad valorem on U.S. fructose, alcoholic

beverages (wine, wine coolers, brandy, Tennessee

whiskey), notebooks, flat glass, and wood furniture,

effective December 1, 1996.18 Mexican figures

indicate that the retaliatory duties will result in $1

billion in new tariff revenues.19 U.S. industry asserts

that the level of compensation being claimed is

excessive.20 The tariff increases imposed by the United

States and Mexico on one another’s products pursuant

to the U.S. action on broomcorn brooms followed

bilateral consultations under Chapter 20 of the NAFTA

on August 21, 1996, which had been requested by

Mexico but did not resolve the dispute.21

Although tentative, working-level agreement on

accelerated tariff elimination was reached in 1996, no

formal action was taken to implement such changes.

The United States is seeking improvements in Mexican
63

tariff treatment of U.S. goods such as wine, major

home appliances, flat glass, and bedding.22

Customs, Rules of Origin, and

Marking Rules

Several technical changes were made in 1996 to

ensure compliance with NAFTA commitments and to

facilitate customs clearance of NAFTA goods.23 Work

to resolve remaining difficulties continued.

Meanwhile, as explained below, a court ruling in 1996

called into question interpretation by U.S. Customs of

country-of-origin marking requirements.

Customs Administration

On April 1, 1996, a new Customs Reform Law

entered into effect in Mexico.24 The new law aims to

increase transparency in customs administration,

improve clarity regarding importer responsibilities, and

permit greater flexibility in duty payments. Mexican

customs authorities were also empowered by the law to

take action if IPR violations are suspected.25 Despite

some outstanding concerns, traders and Mexican

customs brokers reportedly agree that Mexican

customs procedures have improved dramatically in

recent years and that the new law simplifies a number

of procedures.26 Nevertheless, U.S. exporters,

particularly in consumer product sectors, continue to

complain about certain aspects of Mexican customs

administration, largely related to a lack of prior

notification regarding changes, inconsistent

enforcement of regulatory requirements, and

burdensome administrative procedures.27

Rules of Origin

The NAFTA rules of origin determine whether a

good qualifies for a duty preference as a product of the

region. These NAFTA rules were modified effective

January 1, 1996, as a result of changes to the

Harmonized System and efforts to simplify the rules;

another round of technical changes was due to be made

on January 1, 1997.28 Tentative agreement to make

rules of origin for certain products less restrictive and

easier to use has been reached and is expected to be

acted upon in 1997.29 Operational procedures to

ensure compliance with NAFTA provisions on duty

drawback and duty deferral became effective between

Canada and the United States in January 1996.

Simplification of the certificate of origin required to

obtain NAFTA tariff benefits is presently under

consideration by the NAFTA Customs Subgroup.

Procedures for the conduct of textile verification visits

are also being developed.30

Marking Rules

In June 1996, the U.S. Customs Service issued

final country-of-origin marking rules for NAFTA

partners that were to become effective in August

1996.31 The rules modified the interim marking rules

issued January 3, 1994, to conform to the 1996 HTS.

 In a July 8, 1996 ruling, the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) struck down the applicable

interim marking rule, as well as a ruling by the U.S.

Customs Service on shipments for peanut slurry that

had been made under the interim rule.32 The CIT said

Customs’ implementation of U.S. country-of-origin

marking requirements as set forth in NAFTA and

promulgated in the NAFTA Implementation Act was

“arbitrary and contrary to law.” In particular, the CIT

said, Customs must employ both the change in tariff

classification test and the substantial transformation

test originally set forth in United States v. Gibson

Thomsen Co. in making determinations as to whether

country-of-origin marking is required. The NAFTA

Implementation Act provides that finished goods that

result when imported inputs undergo substantial

transformation in the United States are exempt from

country-of-origin marking requirements. Customs had

previously proposed extending the tariff-shift

methodology it uses for making NAFTA origin and

marking determinations to non-preferential trade as

well.33

The CIT decision applies to all NAFTA marking

decisions, but its impact in practice will be limited to

those products that do not meet the change in tariff

classification test, but still undergo substantial

transformation in the United States. The Justice

Department filed a request for a rehearing of the CIT

decision; the request was denied on the record.34

Meanwhile, on August 22, 1996, the final NAFTA

Marking Rules, as issued by the U.S. Customs Service

on June 6, 1996, took effect despite the July decision.

Energy

In 1996, Mexico retreated from original plans to

privatize fully the secondary petrochemical facilities

owned by Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), the

government-owned petroleum monopoly, and valued at

an estimated $3 to $5 billion.35 Although Mexico is not

required by NAFTA to open up its secondary

petrochemical industry to majority foreign

participation, President Ernesto Zedillo made the sale

of some 61 petrochemical facilities an important
64

component of his economic stabilization and

privatization program in early 1995.36 However, in

March 1996, Mexico announced its intention to use a

NAFTA provision that allows the initial offering of the

PEMEX secondary petrochemical assets to be limited

to firms with majority ownership by Mexican

nationals. In October 1996, Mexico announced that

plans to privatize secondary petrochemical plants

would be scaled down, and that legislation would be

introduced to limit private-sector investment into

secondary petrochemicals to 49 percent, with PEMEX

retaining majority share; newly-built petrochemical

plants may have up to 100 percent foreign investment;

legislation along these lines was passed on October 30,

1996.37 Initial privatization plans were announced in

late January 1997.38

Agriculture

NAFTA establishes both trilateral and bilateral

commitments on agricultural trade. Market access

commitments are made bilaterally among the three

NAFTA partners, that is, between the United States and

Mexico, between the United States and Canada

(generally, what was already agreed under the

U.S.-Canada FTA), and between Canada and Mexico.

Trilateral commitments address domestic support and

export subsidies.

Trade in agricultural goods has expanded

dramatically since NAFTA’s inception.39 A USDA

report issued in October 1996 estimates that

intra-NAFTA trade in agricultural products could reach

$30 billion a year by 2005, up from $19 billion in

1995.40

The most significant 1996 developments related to

NAFTA agriculture trade were—

 The issuance in December 1996 of a

NAFTA panel report on dairy and poultry

products;41

 The signing by Mexican suppliers and the

U.S. Department of Commerce of a

bilateral price undertaking on tomatoes,

ending a 2-year dispute;42

 U.S. imposition of tariff-rate quotas on

Mexican broomcorn brooms;43 and

 The establishment of an advisory

committee on private commercial disputes

in the agricultural sector.44

Each of these issues is discussed in other sections of

this report.

Also in 1996, the three parties continued efforts to

monitor subsidies on exports by third parties to the

Western Hemisphere and agreed to cooperate towards

achieving a multilateral agreement in the context of the

WTO to eliminate tariffs and other export measures in

the oilseed sector.45 Such work is in line with the

Working Group’s mandate to work toward elimination

of all export subsidies affecting agricultural trade

between the parties. Monitoring and other cooperation

regarding implementation of market access

commitments and domestic support measures was also

agreed.46 In addition, a technical working group on

pesticides held its inaugural meeting on Mar. 27-29,

1996. It will work on harmonizing tolerances for

pesticides, food additives, pesticide registration

procedures, and veterinary drug residue levels.47

NAFTA eventually will replace all agricultural

import licenses and allocated quota shares affecting

U.S.-Mexico trade with tariff rate quotas (TRQs).48

However, the Mexican government still requires

import licenses for slightly under 200 products.49 The

United States asked Mexico to replace its existing

licensing requirement on corn grits with a TRQ,

separate from the TRQ on corn. In March 1996,

Mexico notified the United States of its approval of a

new TRQ of 50,000 tons for corn grits.50

NAFTA represented a breakthrough in the area of

animal and plant health cooperation by creating a

mechanism whereby portions of a country can be

recognized as free of disease or pests, thereby

permitting imports to enter or transit the United States

from such regions. As a result, on December 31, 1996

the United States announced plans to permit fresh,

chilled and frozen pork and pork products from the

Mexican State of Baja California to transit the United

States for export to another country,51 and on January

31, 1997, USDA announced its final approval of the

partial lifting of the U.S. ban on Mexican avocados,

marking progress on a longstanding bilateral dispute.52

In 1996, USDA and Mexico’s Ministry of

Agriculture (SEGAR) also cooperated in the

development and recognition of disease-free zones.

USDA’s Agriculture and Plant Health Inspection

Service is currently focusing on free zones for classic

swine fever in the state of Sonora. Recognition of

Mexico’s poultry meat inspection system is another

important issue for Mexico.53 USDA is currently

reviewing Mexico’s inspection system.

The three NAFTA partners agreed that the Sanitary

and Phytosanitary Committeee will consider issues

related to trade in genetically-modified material.54

That committee will conduct the review in response to

Mexican concerns that genetically-altered corn and

cotton grown in U.S. border states could spread across

the border.
65

Other sanitary and phytosanitary standards issues

remain under discussion. For example, the United

States has concerns over Mexico’s standards regarding

mold in grain55 and concerns exist over other

products.56 In addition, the United States believes that

Mexico’s reliance on “emergency” standards that do

not follow the normal notification and comment

process has disrupted trade.57

Standards

NAFTA establishes both substantive and

procedural requirements on product standards and

conformity assessment procedures in an effort to

ensure that such requirements do not unnecessarily

restrict trade. Since NAFTA has been in effect, a

number of standards-related issues have confronted

business and trade policy makers. USTR notes that

since NAFTA’s entry into force the United States has

“repeatedly called upon the Government of Mexico to

recognize its obligation to publish changes in

regulation with adequate time for public comment.”58

Problems in ensuring transparency, confusion about

regulatory requirements, and inconsistent application

of requirements have been cited by the U.S. Chamber

of Commerce as impediments to small business export

expansion under NAFTA.59 Some of these problems

are due to an extensive overhaul of Mexico’s standards

and certification system, which has been under way

since 1992. This overhaul contains some positive

features, such as greater opportunities for input in

standards development. However, it involves

numerous changes from prior practice as well as

enforcement of prior regulations that were previously

ignored. A Committee on Standards-Related Measures

was established to oversee NAFTA obligations and to

address specific concerns. In 1996, the Committee

addressed a number of matters of interest to U.S.

industry.

Mexico began enforcing certain new labeling

requirements for textiles and apparel on February 14,

1996 that had been published in final form on January

24, 1996.60 The standard was originally published in

draft form on Dec. 23, 1994, but its requirements and

implementation was postponed following protests by

U.S. and other suppliers. U.S. suppliers expressed

concerns about a requirement that labels contain

information on the country of origin of the material as

well as the country in which the product is assembled,

requiring firms to keep costly records exclusively for

sales to Mexico.61 Previously, Mexico had enforced

labeling requirements at the point of sale, rather than at

the border.62 In July 1996, Mexico postponed

indefinitely application of two of the more problematic

portions of the regulation that had been slated to go

into effect July 1996;63 final rules were published in

early 1997.64

On January 24, 1996, Mexico published labeling

requirements on consumer products and pre-packaged

food and non-alcoholic beverages that were to enter

into force in November; implementation was later

postponed until March 1, 1997 (for consumer goods)

and July 1, 1997 (for processed foods and

non-alcoholic beverages).65 “Over-stickering” of

labels—a common practice among U.S. exporters

whereby required Spanish-language information is

attached to the package via a sticker applied over

existing labels—will be permitted under the new rules.

However, firms choosing to attach labels after the

product’s entry into Mexico would need to have their

product’s conformity with the labeling requirements

verified within 10 days of entry. Enforcement

guidelines spelling out certain aspects of how Mexico’s

verification units would monitor compliance with the

new labeling rules were issued on June 24, 1996;66

additional rules regarding verification units were

issued in early 1997,67 just two weeks before the

March 1, 1997 date when enforcement of the new

consumer product labeling rules would begin.68 The

United States urged Mexico to employ a “soft

implementation period,” during which manufacturers

would be informed of any deficiency in complying

with the new labeling rules and be given an

opportunity to fix it, during the first few months after

implementation.69 It also expressed the hope that

additional verification units be named.70

A draft Mexican health regulation that would

reclassify certain vitamins and herbs as

pharmaceuticals was also discussed in the context of

the NAFTA standards group. There was concern both

over the requirements themselves as well as over

whether U.S. and Canadian suppliers would have an

opportunity to comment upon them.71 Specifically, the

rule would considerably expand the scope of regulation

to include all products whose vitamin and mineral

content exceed 100 percent of recommended daily

amounts and limit distribution of such goods to

over-the-counter pharmacies, versus door-to-door and

other sales outlets, which are widely employed by U.S.

suppliers such as Amway and Shaklee.72 Mexico

maintains that since the change would not technically

involve a revision of an existing regulation but rather a

new interpretation of one, it is not required to publish

the change in draft or to provide NAFTA partners an

opportunity to comment.73

Nearly all Mexican standards are mandatory and

Mexico generally requires products subject to

mandatory standards to undergo certification by
66

accredited Mexican laboratories.74 Under NAFTA,

Mexico is obligated to accredit or otherwise recognize

testing and certification performed by U.S. or Canadian

labs after a 4-year transition period (lasting until

1998).75 Until then, however, U.S.-based laboratories

are not able to seek recognition under Mexican

accreditation procedures as being competent to

perform mandatory testing and certification.

Problems have arisen for U.S. exporters in sectors

where technical capability in Mexico is insufficient or

resides in competing manufacturers.76 An agreement

reached on March 18, 1996 resolved one such problem.

The agreement will allow the U.S. Department of

Transportation to identify competent laboratories and

to have data from these laboratories used by Mexican

authorities in determining whether U.S. tires meet

Mexican regulations and are entitled to certification.77

In September 1996, Mexico published new standards

for automobile tires that were responsive to comments

received by U.S. industry; certain information is

permitted to be attached to imported tires via labels

rather than being molded into the sidewall.78

U.S. suppliers have complained about the Mexican

practice of granting certification to individual

importers, rather than to manufacturers, which means

that a new certification must be obtained for each

importer. In discussions in the NAFTA Committee on

Standards-Related Measures during 1996, Mexico said

it planned to change its certification procedures.

Uncertainty over the new requirements and when they

would be applicable remained a source of U.S. concern

during 1996.79 On January 3, 1997, Mexico published

new standards certification procedures for comment

that appear to permit foreign producers to place their

products on a register so that various importers can

obtain the required certification.80 The publication is

consistent with U.S. requests that the new procedures

be notified in draft form and that opportunities for

comment by foreign suppliers be provided.81

NAFTA created subcommittees on standards

dealing with various industries: land transportation,

automotive, and telecommunications standards and

textile labeling. These subcommittees are to make

efforts to harmonize regulatory requirements among

the NAFTA partners to facilitate intra-regional

commerce. A private sector initiative by the American

National Standards Institute and its Mexican and

Canadian counterparts, known as the North American

Trilateral Standardization Forum (NATSF), is also

achieving cooperation in development of private sector

standards.

During 1996, progress was made in the five

working groups related to land transportation

standards, which deal with such areas as truck and rail

operations and equipment. Technical work on

comparing vehicle weights and dimension standards

was finalized and consideration given to developing a

single set of regulations to govern cross-border

transportation of hazardous materials.82

Regarding automotive standards, the three parties

are seeking to identify incompatible standards that

have created, or could create, barriers to trade. Based

on comments from industry, it was agreed in 1996 to

establish working groups with participation from

industry to study emissions, engines, and fuels; light

vehicle safety standards; heavy vehicle safety

standards; and parts and equipment. Each government

issued public notices inviting participation in the

working groups by non-governmental interests.83 In

mid-October 1996, 3 of the 4 working groups met in

Washington to begin their work.84

Government Procurement

Under NAFTA, U.S. firms enjoy improved access

to the Canadian procurement market and progressively

increasing access to the Mexican procurement market,

including its two largest purchasing entities, PEMEX

and CFE (the state oil and federal power utility,

respectively.) NAFTA also calls for joint steps to make

it easier for small businesses to take advantage of

government procurement opportunities.

Implementation of NAFTA provisions has been

generally effective,85 and U.S. firms have recently won

several contracts with PEMEX. However, in its April

1996 report on discrimination in foreign government

procurement, USTR noted U.S. and Canadian concern

over Mexico’s implementation of set-asides

(exemptions) for PEMEX and Mexico’s proposed

services schedule, which, despite two revisions in

1996, has still not been finalized and excludes a

number of sectors that should be covered by NAFTA

rules.86 In October 1996, Mexico agreed to provide a

detailed breakdown of the data included in the

Mexican set-aside calculation.87 Canada’s broad

interpretation of its exception for services was also a

source of U.S. complaint,88 though generally the

Government of Canada poses few barriers to U.S.

firms seeking to bid on contracts.89 Mexico has

complained about changes in U.S. federal procurement

law made in 1994 which raise the value of contracts

subject to small-business set-asides from $50,000, the

level when NAFTA was negotiated, to $100,000. As a

result of trilateral working level discussions in October

1996, the NAFTA partners have tentatively agreed to

raise the NAFTA threshold to $100,000 for all three

countries.90
67

Investment and Services

Trucking

The December 1995 decision by Secretary of

Transportation Federico Pena to suspend processing of

applications by Mexican trucking firms to serve U.S.

border states until safety concerns were resolved was a

major NAFTA issue throughout 1996. Mexican trucks

already have access to a 20-mile zone along the U.S.

border under a pre-NAFTA bilateral arrangement.

NAFTA was to provide Mexican truckers full access to

the 4 U.S. border states (California, Arizona, New

Mexico, and Texas) starting in December 1995 and to

the entire United States by 2000. The possibility of

ill-equipped trucks and poorly-trained drivers entering

the United States from Mexico had been a source of

U.S. concern, particularly since trucks crossing the

border often carry hazardous materials.

At the time of the 1995 delay, USTR Kantor

indicated that it would take at least 45 days to agree on

additional safeguards to ensure that trucks are safe and

drivers are qualified.91 Mexico sought formal

consultations under NAFTA dispute settlement

procedures. The first round of consultations was held

on January 19, 1996.92 The U.S. side reportedly told

Mexico that improvements in safety and in control

over cross-border drug smuggling were required before

Mexican applications would be processed.93 Technical

discussions among safety officials continued, including

at meetings on the margins of the U.S.-Mexico

Binational Commission held in early May. However,

Mexico remained insistent that the United States

immediately begin processing the applications on file

and rejected U.S. requests that it establish a system that

would allow authorities to determine in advance

whether Mexican applicants for cross-border licenses

met U.S. truck and driver safety requirements.94

A June 24, 1996 blockade by Mexican truckers of

international bridges along the common border from

Matamoros to Miguele Aleman, Tamaulipas, Mexico,

completely stopped U.S.-Mexico commerce in the

affected areas. The drivers were protesting heightened

inspection of Mexican trucks by Texas state officials

that Mexican drivers felt was discriminatory and

resulted in 78 of the 98 vehicles inspected during the

June 3-15, 1996 period being placed out of service.95

On October 18, 1996, the International

Brotherhood of Teamsters filed an appeal in a renewed

effort to legally block entry by Mexican truckers.96

The petition charged that the Interstate Commerce

Commission failed to seek all relevant information and

misapplied the national treatment obligation found in

NAFTA Article 1202, which requires that “Each Party

shall accord to service providers of another Party

treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like

circumstances, to its own service providers.” The

petition cited a February 1996 GAO study,97 which

found that nearly half of the 12,462 trucks from

Mexico inspected at the border were taken out of

service due to serious safety problems. Such statistics,

the Teamsters argued, provided grounds for the U.S.

Department of Transportation to conclude that “like

circumstances” did not exist between U.S. and

Mexican truckers.

The issue was also controversial domestically. In

an early January 1996 letter to President Clinton,

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee

Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Trade Subcommittee

Chairman Phil Crane (R-Illinois) protested the delay,

warning that “Your decision to break a NAFTA

commitment . . . is a dangerous precedent that

threatens future implementation of the agreement and

draws into question the commitment of the United

States . . . to NAFTA.”98 In October, California

Governor Pete Wilson asked President Clinton to allow

the state to implement NAFTA cross-border trucking

provisions as a pilot project.99 The Governors of

California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have said

they are satisfied that the safety and security measures

being implemented by federal and border state

agencies are adequate.

Lack of progress in this matter was also criticized

by the American Trucking Association (ATA). The

ATA pointed out that failure to open borders has hurt

the U.S. trucking industry, as trucking companies

made investments in anticipation of reciprocal

access.100 The ATA added that the dispute prevented

progress in discussions of other important trucking

issues. Those talks centered on permission for U.S.

trucks larger than a specified length to operate in

Mexico, investment by U.S. companies in Mexican

trucking firms, and the finalization by the government

of Mexico of small parcel delivery regulations for U.S.

carriers into Mexico in accordance with its NAFTA

obligations.101

On the other hand, in late January 1996, a bill was

introduced in the Senate that would have blocked

implementation of NAFTA’s trucking provisions until

Mexico improved its performance in fighting drug

trafficking, a growing U.S. concern. On January 14,

1997, the National Association of Independent Insurers

called on President Clinton to retain the moratorium on

granting increased access to Mexican trucks, citing

safety concerns.102
68

The United States has indicated that opening U.S.

border states to Mexican trucking is contingent upon

Mexico’s willingness to implement a mutually

acceptable inspection and enforcement process

regarding motor carrier safety.103 Recent reports

suggest that efforts to resolve the trucking dispute are

intensifying, with a settlement possible in the early

months of 1997.104 Nevertheless, citing similar

grounds, the United States decided in January 1997 to

delay implementation of NAFTA commitments on bus

transportation, which called for lifting of restrictions

on regular-route, cross-border scheduled bus service on

January 1, 1997.

Investment and Non-Financial

Services

In a March 31, 1996 exchange of letters,105 the

three NAFTA partners agreed to reserve indefinitely all

non-conforming state and provincial measures existing

January 1, 1994 from NAFTA disciplines on

non-financial services and investment. The effect of

this action is to extend indefinitely the exemption of

such measures from the accord’s provisions on national

treatment, most favored nation treatment, and

prohibitions on attaching conditions on investors or

service providers that require local presence,

mandatory performance (e.g., for local content and

exporting), and national or residency conditions for

firm managers.106 However, new non-conforming

measures by states and provinces implemented after

January 1, 1994 could be subject to challenge under the

accord. The three governments agreed for purposes of

transparency to exchange lists of measures that they

had identified as non-conforming measures; this

exchange was completed in 1996.107

Under the original NAFTA text, all existing

non-conforming measures at the state and local level

were blanket exempted until January 1, 1996, when the

3 countries were to submit detailed lists of

non-conforming measures; only notified measures

were to be exempt from certain obligations under

NAFTA Chapters 11 and 12. This deadline was

extended until March 31, 1996. Canada had faced

opposition from its provinces over the item-by-item

exemptions, largely due to concerns that U.S. health

care providers might find ways to penetrate the

Canadian health care system. Several U.S. states had

also expressed a desire for a general versus individual

exemptions from the accord.

Financial Services

In April 1996, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo

introduced legislation to replace Mexico’s

government-run social security system with a

privately-managed system. The U.S. Government

advocated the right of U.S. companies under NAFTA

to participate in managing the system’s $7 billion in

assets. Although some Mexican legislators and unions

reportedly opposed foreign participation,108 foreign

firms have since been approved as private pension fund

administrators.109 The improvement in Mexico’s

economic performance, meanwhile, resulted in

increases in the individual and aggregate capital limits

for U.S. and Canadian financial institutions, which

were announced on November 5, 1996. NAFTA

permits foreign financial institutions from member

nations to hold a specified percentage of system-wide

capital and assets that increases over time and

fluctuates with the amount of assets in the financial

system.110

Professional Services

An agreement on mutual recognition of

engineering licenses reached under NAFTA’s

professional services provisions during 1995 was

circulated to 55 state and territorial license boards for

ratification in 1996.111 The representative engineering

and licensing groups are currently reviewing

procedures for implementation. Nine Canadian

provincial and territorial engineering associations have

submitted letters of intent to implement the agreement

and the state of Texas became the first U.S. state to

submit a letter of intent.112 A draft text on foreign legal

consultants has been prepared and is currently under

review.113 Discussions by several other professional

groups regarding mutual recognition are underway.114

Telecommunications

The NAFTA Telecommunications Standards

subcommittee monitors and facilitates implementation

of telecommunications-related productions of NAFTA.

It has a detailed multi-year work program on standards

harmonization and testing-related trade facilitation.

Two main disagreements over implementation of

NAFTA obligations relating to telecommunications

equipment occurred during 1996. One related to

Mexican acceptance of U.S. test data, the other to

Mexican standards for telecom terminal attachment

equipment that the United States and Canada believe

go well beyond NAFTA provisions.
69

Acceptance of Test Data

As part of the annual review of

telecommunications trade agreements under Section

1377 of the 1988 Trade Act,115 USTR on April 3, 1996

determined that Mexico is not in compliance with its

obligations under NAFTA. NAFTA Article 1304-6

required Mexico to have in place by January 1, 1995,

procedures for the direct acceptance of U.S. test data

for use in determining conformity with standards

relating to telecom terminal equipment authorization.116 Procedures for acceptance of data regarding

terminal attachment standards and regarding data on

terminal safety standards were required. Without both

sets of procedures in place, U.S. exporters are

effectively denied access to the growing Mexican

market for telecommunications equipment. The USTR

report said that the United States would initiate

NAFTA dispute settlement procedures should rapid

progress not be made.117

A series of discussions were held in an effort to

resolve the dispute. Mexico maintained that the

relevant NAFTA deadline for its acceptance of all

product safety test data, including those related to

telecom equipment, is not until January 1, 1998, as

outlined in NAFTA’s Chapter 9 on standards generally.

In August consultations, NAFTA parties agreed to

pursue an informal plan on telecom data exchange.

The plan called for U.S. laboratories to conclude

agreements for the exchange of test data related to

product safety with laboratories in Mexico. The

negotiated schedule for resolution of the dispute has

reportedly slipped, but the issue was slated to be

resolved at an April 1997 meeting.118 As of yearend,

the exchange of letters had taken place but Mexico had

not implemented the procedures.119

New Regulations on Telecom

Attachment Equipment

Related to the dispute over test data was the

December 1994 issuance by Mexico’s Electronic

Standardization and Certification Agency of an

emergency regulation establishing standards for

network terminal attachment equipment, which

includes telephones, facsimile machines, and other

equipment connected to the public phone network by

users. Mexico relied on the emergency regulation in

order to come into compliance with an obligation to

have in place by January 1, 1995 parameters for

terminal attachment equipment. Discussions about the

emergency regulations revealed fundamental

differences between the United States and Canada on

the one hand, and Mexico on the other hand, over

NAFTA commitments on product standards for

network terminal equipment, notably over what issues

were legitimate topics for mandatory standards.

Article 1304 provides that mandatory standards for

terminal telecommunications equipment should only

go so far as to prevent harm or interference with the

network and to ensure users’ safety and access to

public telecommunications networks or services. The

three government representatives to the NAFTA

Telecommunications Standards Subcommittee (TSSC)

reportedly agreed in three separate TSSC meetings in

1995 to a limited interpretation of “access” and

network harm.120

Mexico, whose industry is dominated by

subsidiaries of the big European telecom suppliers,121

resisted the NAFTA definition of access arguing

instead that Article 1304 entitles Mexico’s Telecom

Ministry and its standards body to impose a host of

mandatory performance and design standards on a

product-by-product basis. The Mexican emergency

regulation contains 32 parameters and some 60

subparameters to regulate network terminal attachment

equipment.122 The Government of Mexico maintains

that these standards are consistent with the goal of

ensuring “access,” because it defines access as

meaning that equipment must reliably work as

anticipated by consumers.

Until August 1996, attempts to resolve the issue

had not progressed.123 At the TSSC meeting held in

Mexico City August 15-16, 1996, the three NAFTA

governments agreed to a series of steps and deadlines

for resolving the dispute, with a view toward resolving

the problem by the end of the next TSSC meeting

scheduled for February 11-12, 1997. Mexico agreed

that the new set of standards developed by its industry

would be reviewed by the trilateral industry consultive

body, the Consultive Committee - Telecom (CCT).

The CCT was charged with comparing the 32 proposed

Mexican standards against the requirements of NAFTA

Article 1304 and reporting back to the TSSC which of

the 32 should be mandatory, which should be

voluntary, and which it cannot agree upon.

The CCT’s final recommendation was issued to the

TSSC in January 1997.124

Intellectual Property

Mexican legal standards for protection of

intellectual property rights have been progressively

aligned with internationally-accepted standards. In

1996, Mexico passed a law providing protection of

plant species, as required by NAFTA.125 Mexico has

also signed the International Union for the Protection

of New Varieties of Plants and the Patent Cooperation
70

Treaty. Enforcement of intellectual property rights has

been slowly improving since NAFTA’s inception. The

entry into force of a new Customs law in April 1996

enabled Mexican customs officials to seize pirated

merchandise for the first time, and U.S. rights holders

have reported positive outcomes when such action has

been requested.126 Nevertheless, few arrests have

resulted from investigations and raids, and criminal

cases have been compromised by leaks and loss of

evidence.127 Enforcement still falls far short of the

level required to combat effectively rampant piracy.128

As a result, USTR reports that piracy and

counterfeiting of U.S. intellectual property in Mexico

remains a serious U.S. concern.129

In late 1995, the United States and Mexico

established a bilateral working group on intellectual

property rights.130 Following its first meeting in

February 1996, Mexico agreed to re-establish the

inter-secretarial commission for the safeguard and

protection of IPR and unfair competition. At a March

28-29, 1996 meeting, Mexico unveiled a ten-point

action plan based on U.S. industry recommendations

for improving IPR protection that it said it planned to

announce. At the third meeting in July, the Mexican

delegation notified the United States of two newly

established IPR working groups, one to focus on

enforcement and the other to review legal matters

related to IPR protection.131

In a February 1996 submission to USTR, the

International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) said

that Mexico’s failure to comply with NAFTA’s

enforcement obligations cost copyright-based

industries more than $285 million in 1995. The IIPA

charged that Mexico does not provide expeditious

relief from piracy as required under Article 1714 of

NAFTA. In addition, IIPA said that Mexico has not

provided provisional remedies, injunctive relief, or

sufficient criminal penalties for violators, as required

under Articles 1715, 1716, and 1717 respectively. The

Business Software Alliance (BSA) also expressed

concerns over Mexico’s procedures for criminal

enforcement of IPR.132

On November 11, 1996, President Zedillo

submitted reforms to intellectual property law to

Mexico’s Congress. The reforms would significantly

increase protection for computer programs, textile

designs, and several other types of copyrighted

material. Penalties in several areas were to increase.133

Penalties for copyright violations would include prison

sentences from one to six years and fines of up to

20,000 times Mexico’s daily minimum wage (currently

about $3 per day). Software piracy violations would

include prison sentences of up to 12 years and fines of

up to 40,000 times the minimum wage. However, the

law contained serious deficiencies from the U.S.

perspective, particularly with respect to penalties for

infringement and protection for certain types of sound

recordings.134 The law was enacted on December 24,

1996. The U.S. government has submitted formal

comments on the law,135 and is reportedly hoping that

the Mexican government addresses outstanding U.S.

concerns in implementing regulations now under

development.136

In June 1996, the United States notified Canada

that pending revisions to Canadian copyright law

would violate NAFTA’s nondiscriminatory treatment

and IPR provisions because the measure would

discriminate against U.S. music performers and

companies. The bill, scheduled to come to a final vote

in early 1997,137 would extend music broadcast royalty

rights to producers and performers (neighboring

rights), impose a levy on blank audio cassettes to

compensate artists, and make it an offense for

booksellers to obtain books from any source other than

the exclusive agent for the Canadian market. Because

the neighboring rights amendment would benefit only

Rome Convention signatories, U.S. producers and

performers could benefit under NAFTA only if the

United States passed a similar law.138

NAFTA Dispute Settlement

NAFTA contains several dispute settlement

mechanisms. It carries forward the system created

under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement that

provides firms the option of having final antidumping

and countervailing duty determinations reviewed by a

panel of experts drawn from each party, in lieu of

appealing such determinations to the national courts.

NAFTA also contains a government-to-government

dispute resolution procedure. Any NAFTA party can

request consultations under NAFTA dispute settlement

procedures and, failing satisfaction, can request

formation of a panel to examine its concerns. Opting

to pursue NAFTA dispute settlement, a choice made at

the complaining parties’ discretion, precludes pursuit

of the same matter under WTO dispute settlement

procedures.

As of December 30, 1996, a total of 25 dispute

settlement panels had been established under NAFTA.

All but one of the panels involved firm-initiated

reviews of final agency determinations in antidumping

and countervailing duty investigations, as provided for

in NAFTA Chapter 19.139
71

Trilateral Panel Reviews of

AD/CVD Determinations

Panel reviews of AD/CVD determinations are

conducted under Chapter 19 of NAFTA. Since

NAFTA entered into force, Chapter 19 panels have

completed 12 appeals (6 concerning U.S.

determinations, 2 concerning Mexican determinations,

and 4 concerning Canadian determinations). Chapter

19 panels are currently considering 5 appeals,

including 1 against U.S. determinations, 1 against

Canadian determinations, and 3 against Mexican

determinations. All but 2 of the Chapter 19 cases

considered thus far have involved U.S. determinations

or U.S. exporters.140

 The NAFTA Chapter 19 panel system has not been

without controversy.141 In August 1995, a bipartisan

group of U.S. Senators urged that the panel system be

changed or abandoned and expressed opposition to

extending the mechanism to future FTA partners.142 In

January 1997, a private group announced plans to

mount a constitutional challenge to the mechanism.143

General Dispute Settlement

Panel Reports

The only government-to-government dispute

referred to a panel for resolution under NAFTA

Chapter 20 reached a key stage in early December

1996 with the formal release of the panel’s report. As

explained in greater detail in the Canada section of ch.

4, the panel was formed at the request of the United

States to examine the NAFTA compatibility of

Canada’s tariff rate quotas on imports of U.S. dairy,

poultry products, barley, and margarine. The panel

found that Canada was within its NAFTA rights in

subjecting U.S. goods to the high duties that resulted

from the conversion of Canadian import quotas to

tariffs as called for by the WTO Agreement on

Agriculture.

Pre-Panel Consultations

Government-to-government consultations under

NAFTA dispute settlement procedures were held on 6

issues. The United States was the complaining party in

one case, on Mexico’s treatment of U.S.-affiliated

small package delivery firms. Consultations over U.S.

concerns, which include Mexico’s onerous restrictions

on vehicle and package size and failure to grant U.S.

firms full operating authority (they operate under

temporary and limited authority), thus far have proved

inconclusive.144 The United States was the respondent

in 5 cases—tomatoes,145 trucking (discussed above),

broomcorn brooms,146 sugar-containing products

(discussed below), and the Cuban Liberty and

Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (Libertad, or

Helms-Burton, Act147).148

Formal dispute settlement consultations over a

Canadian complaint about the U.S. Sugar-Containing

Products Re-Export Program were held on November

20, 1996.149 Canada maintains that the United States

is obliged to stop applying the program to exports

destined for Canada as a result of NAFTA Article 303,

whose accompanying annex sets a January 1, 1996

deadline for phasing out duty-drawback and

duty-deferral programs. The United States maintains

that the Sugar Re-Export Program—which allows U.S.

firms to purchase quota-exempt raw sugar if they

re-export an equivalent amount of refined sugar in food

products—is not a duty-drawback or duty-deferral

scheme.

Private Commercial Disputes

Another innovation of NAFTA was its efforts to

facilitate resolution of cross-border commercial

disputes between private parties. Article 2022 of

NAFTA requires each party to facilitate use of alternate

dispute resolution (ADR), to establish procedures to

enforce agreements to arbitrate, and to recognize and

enforce arbitral awards. NAFTA establishes a

broad-ranging Advisory Committee on Private

Commercial Disputes as well as a separate committee

on agriculture.

Advisory Committee on Private

Commercial Disputes

The broad group was constituted shortly after

NAFTA’s inception and has formed 4 working groups,

dealing with arbitration, mediation, promotion of

ADR, and enforcement issues. Action plans for each

working group have been agreed upon. The

Committee has compiled and evaluated existing means

for settling private commercial disputes in each

country and has developed a brochure aimed at

first-time users of ADR, a survey of companies, and

several legal papers on enforcement issues. A third

meeting of the Committee was held on November

14-15, 1996. The Committee’s recommendations for

future work are expected to be considered by the

NAFTA Free Trade Commission when it meets in

1997, along with a report on the Committee’s work to

date.150
72

Advisory Committee on Private

Commercial Disputes for Agricultural

Goods

On April 30, 1996, the three NAFTA partners

agreed to appoint an advisory committee on private

commercial disputes in agriculture, as called for in

Article 707. The NAFTA countries agreed to the terms

of reference for the committee, which is charged with

making recommendations on the availability, use, and

effectiveness of arbitration and other methods of

alternate dispute resolution in the NAFTA region.

Each country was to appoint up to 10 members of the

committee, 2 of which could be government

representatives.151 The Committee held its inaugural

meeting on February 17, 1997, in Mazaltan, Mexico.

The initial focus of the group will be on perishable

fruits and vegetables, sectors for which Canada and the

United States both have governmental programs to aid

resolution of private commercial disputes.

NAFTA and Environmental

Cooperation

NAFTA was accompanied by a trilateral North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

(NAAEC) as well as bilateral agreements with Mexico

to create the North American Development Bank

(NADBank) and the Border Environmental

Cooperation Commission (BECC). The goal of these

agreements was to ensure that NAFTA-related

economic integration was accompanied by cooperation

to strengthen environmental protection and promote

sustainable development. Regular consultations,

case-by-case examination of environmental concerns,

cooperative work, and jointly financed infrastructure

projects are among the activities envisioned.

Commission for Environmental

Cooperation

The NAAEC is administered by a Commission for

Environmental Cooperation (CEC). A CEC Council,

comprised of the three NAFTA environment ministers,

oversees the CEC. The Council is supported by a

Secretariat, located in Montreal, Canada, as well as a

Joint Public Advisory Committee that includes

representatives from non-governmental organizations

and business. During 1996, discussion papers were

prepared that focused on such topics as how NAFTA

partners could lay the groundwork for international

efforts to address the nexus between trade and the

environment by developing innovative ways to identify

and avoid trade disputes over environmental issues.

The release of these papers was followed by June 21

and July 19 public meetings.152 At its August 1-2,

1996 annual meeting, the CEC Council agreed to

launch a program to promote environmental “best

practices” in both the public and private sectors and to

develop principles to guide development of new

environmental regulation and management systems.

All three NAFTA partners have or are considering

devolving considerable responsibility for

environmental regulation to states and provinces.

Ways to ensure that standards of protection and

administrative capacity remain adequate were

discussed by the CEC Council. A December 4-5, 1996

meeting sponsored by the CEC and held in Austin,

Texas brought together state, federal, and local

government regulators from across the Americas to

consider these questions, as well as the implications of

moves by all 3 countries towards reliance on

“voluntary compliance” measures that provide

businesses greater leeway in attaining environmental

goals.153

Cooperative Projects

The CEC has begun cooperative work on 38

projects that focus on four major goals: conservation,

protecting human health and the environment,

enforcement cooperation and law, and information and

public outreach. Several cooperative agreements were

signed on October 13, 1996. Under the conservation

theme, the CEC is developing a biodiversity database

for North America. Programs to conserve North

American birds and butterflies were launched by the

CEC after it had conducted an investigation under the

NAAEC into the deaths of over 40,000 migratory and

native birds in December 1994 at Mexico’s Silva

Reservoir. Regarding human health, trilateral

discussions aimed at sound management or phase-out

of four toxic substances—PCBs, DDT, mercury, and

chlordane—resulted in submission of regional action

plans on December 15, 1996. A trilingual electronic

information service to help users of environmental

technologies make better decisions about which

products best suit their needs will be launched in the

Spring of 1997.154 The CEC has developed a database

of environmental laws in all the three countries that is

accessible to the public via the Internet. Development

of measures to gauge compliance and enforcement is

also being considered.
73

Study of NAFTA’s Impact on

Environment

Of direct interest to trade policy makers, the CEC

has undertaken a pathbreaking study on the effects of

NAFTA trade on the environment. The study was

launched in response to Article 10.6 (d) of the

NAAEC, which calls for continued consideration of

the environmental effects of NAFTA.155 Drafts of the

study’s component papers are presently being

reviewed. Detailed case studies on two sectors—

agriculture and energy—are being prepared.156 The

complete study should be released in 1997.157 In a

statement released after their August 1-2, 1996

meeting, the CEC Council also indicated that it would

seek a joint meeting with their trade counterparts “to

review the American experience in integrating trade

and environment policies.”158

Fact-Finding Investigations Launched

Upon Complaint

 Some environmental groups claim that NAFTA

has worsened water and air pollution and hazardous

waste dumping, and increased rates of disease and birth

defects.159 Others criticize weak enforcement of

environmental rules.160 Concerns that the heightened

competition engendered by NAFTA would result in

pressure to lower environmental standards or loosen

enforcement of environmental rules led to

establishment of a trilateral mechanism for

investigating such complaints.

By year-end 1996, 4 requests for the CEC to

investigate such concerns under procedures set forth in

Arts. 14 and 15 of the NAAEC had been lodged. Two

petitions, relating to non-enforcement of U.S. laws via

the withdrawal of funding from such activities, were

rejected by the Commission in 1995.161 In response to

another such request, at its August 1996 meeting, the

CEC Council directed the CEC Secretariat to prepare a

factual record regarding the construction and operation

of the public harbor terminal in Cozumel, Mexico,162

which some fear could threaten coral reefs.163 The

group alleged that Mexico did not conduct an

environmental impact assessment before permitting

construction of a pier, passenger terminal and other

infrastucture for tourist cruises, as required under its

environmental laws.164

NADBank and BECC

The NAFTA was accompanied by bilateral

agreement by the United States and Mexico to

establish a jointly-funded North American

Development Bank (NADBank) to provide seed

money for environmental infrastructure and

community development projects along the

U.S.-Mexico Border, as well as to establish a Border

Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) to

review proposals for such funding. In December 1996,

NADBank approved its 2 first loans, for water

treatment plants in Mercedes, Texas, and Brawley,

California.165 As of March 1997, financing for a total

of 4 projects had been approved. BECC, which

recommends projects for NADBank financing based

on need and community support, has certified 12

projects for financing, and is considering additional

projects from a pool of some 100 projects

submitted.166 A report by the U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) issued in July 1996 indicated that

NADBank did not disburse any loans in the year and a

half since Mexico and the United States agreed to

commit $1.5 billion to clean up pollution along the

U.S.-Mexican border.167 GAO also warned that

interest rates on NADBank loans, at 1 percent above

market rates, may be too high for the most polluted

towns.168 NADBank officials have stated that the

bank is ready to be more proactive and to quickly act

upon applications after having put in place credit

guidelines and administrative processes.169

Nevertheless, NADBank General Manager Alfredo

Phillips says it may be difficult for the bank to engage

in substantial lending operations in the short-term

because few of the many projects that have been

discussed have been adequately analyzed and

developed for presentation to potential financiers.170

NAFTA and Labor Cooperation

NAFTA was accompanied by a trilateral North

American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC)

to ensure that NAFTA-related economic integration

was accompanied by improved working conditions and

living standards in each party’s territory and adherence

to basic labor law principles. The NAALC is

administered by a Commission for Labor Cooperation

(CLC). A CLC Council, comprised of the three

NAFTA labor ministers, oversees the CLC. The

Council is supported by a Secretariat, located in Dallas,

Texas. Each member has a National Administrative

Office (NAO) for the agreement. In the United States,

a 12-member National Advisory Commission drawn

from academia, business, and labor groups advises the

NAO.

At its third annual meeting, held May 15, 1996, the

CLC Council heard reports on the CLC Secretariat’s

first year of operation. The Secretariat has initiated

several projects, including preparing comparative
74

reports on labor market conditions and labor law,

undertaking a project to identify advanced labor

practices in the apparel industry, and sponsoring an

international conference on incomes and productivity

in North America in 1997. Cooperative projects on

occupational safety and health, industrial relations,

worker training, and child labor are also underway.171

On February 13, 1996, the Secretariat also

launched a special study at the request of the Council

on the effects of sudden plant closings on the principle

of freedom of association and the right of workers to

organize in the three NAALC countries. The request

was part of an action plan resulting from Ministerial

Consultations held under the accord regarding a

Mexican complaint about union registration at a U.S.

telephone firm (Sprint). The December 15, 1995

action plan also called for continued monitoring of

U.S. legal developments in the case and for the U.S.

Department of Labor to hold a public forum in San

Francisco to allow interested parties an opportunity to

convey their concerns. The forum was held February

27, 1996.172 A draft of the Secretariat study is

presently being reviewed by the Council, which can

either accept the study for publication or send it back

for revisions.173

Each party, through its NAO, can accept petitions

by domestic interests requesting investigations into

complaints about administration of another party’s

labor laws. Issues of union registration and internal

union democracy have been raised in each of the six

submissions reviewed by the U.S. NAO since

NAFTA’s inception. In August 1996, the Secretary of

Labor of Mexico and Mexico’s major labor and

business organizations, signed a document committing

their respective organizations to address these

matters.174 In 1996, ministerial consultations were

held on a U.S. complaint about efforts to organize a

union at a Mexican electronics firm (Sony). The

consultations resulted in an agreement to hold 3 public

seminars on union registration and certification, for the

U.S. NAO to conduct a study on cases before Mexican

authorities involving allegations of unjustified

dismissals, and in meetings between Mexican

authorities and the parties concerned, the last of which

was held February 29-March 1, 1996.175 Also in

1996, the U.S. NAO agreed to investigate charges that

Mexican federal workers had been thwarted in attempts

to form an independent union. A hearing on the case

was held December 3, 1996.176

WTO Review of NAFTA

Under multilateral trading rules, all regional trade

agreements must be notified and undergo an

examination of the accord’s consistency with existing

GATT obligations.177 A working party to examine

NAFTA’s consistency with multilateral trade rules was

established by the GATT on March 23, 1994. With the

advent of the WTO on January 1, 1995, the working

party was converted into a working party under the

WTO,178 whose membership and terms of reference

were established in August 1995.179 Numerous

questions regarding NAFTA have been raised and

responses transmitted.180 The WTO’s Committee on

Regional Trade Agreements focused on NAFTA during

their July 29-31, 1996 session.181 At the meeting,

questions and concerns were raised about the impact of

NAFTA rules of origin on third-country trade,

particularly with respect to autos, electronics, and

textiles and yarn. Trade statistics to aid in an

evaluation of whether NAFTA had been trade-creating

or trade-diverting were also requested.

NAFTA Accession and Bilateral

FTAs

The United States, Canada, and Mexico announced

their intention to begin negotiations on Chile’s

accession to NAFTA in December 1994, and formally

launched negotiations in June 1995.182 However, little

beyond exploratory work occurred in 1995 and 1996,

due in part to the lapse in U.S. Presidential negotiating

authority. With little progress made on NAFTA

accession, the Governments of Chile and Canada

began negotiations on a bilateral free-trade agreement

(FTA) in December 1995. A Canada-Chile FTA,

which is closely patterned on NAFTA market access

provisions and rules of origin, was concluded on

November 14, 1996. Among key differences between

the Canada-Chile FTA and NAFTA, the Chile-Canada

agreement—

 Permits Chile to retain capital control

requirements for foreign investors that

have been identified by the United States as

investment barriers;

 Phases out the use of anti-dumping

measures in bilateral trade over a 6-year

period;183 and

 Exempts cultural industries as well as

supply-managed agricultural commodities.184
75

Canada and Chile also signed agreements on labor and

the environment, closely patterned on the NAFTA

“side agreements” in the same areas, on February 6,

1997; the negotiated Canada-Chile agreements are

scheduled to enter into force on June 2, 1997.185

A bilateral Chile-Mexico FTA has been in

operation since 1992. Negotiations to make that

agreement more comparable to NAFTA by expanding

its coverage and adding disciplines on non-tariff

barriers, services, investment, intellectual property

rights, and temporary movement of personnel (all

topics addressed in NAFTA) are under way.

Free Trade Area of the

Americas

At the December 1994 Summit of the Americas,

the heads of state of the Western Hemisphere’s 34

democracies declared their resolve “to begin

immediately to construct the Free Trade Area of the

Americas (FTAA) in which barriers to trade and

investment will be progressively eliminated. . . . to

conclude the negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the

Americas no later than 2005, and agree that concrete

progress toward the attainment of this objective will be

made by the end of this century.”186 Eleven working

groups were created to lay groundwork for eventual

FTAA negotiations. Those working groups are for:

market access; customs procedures and rules of origin;

investment; sanitary and phytosanitary measures;

standards and technical barriers to trade; subsidies,

antidumping and countervailing duties; smaller

economies, competition policy; government procurement; intellectual property rights; and services.187

The Hemisphere’s Trade Ministers held their

second meeting under the FTAA process in March

1996 in Cartagena, Colombia. No new commitments

to the FTAA process were made during that meeting;

however, the Ministers directed their Vice Trade

Minsters to make an assessment of when and how to

launch the FTAA negotiations, and to make

recommendations on those issues before the third

Trade Ministerial meeting scheduled for May 1997 in

Belo Horizonte, Brazil.188

Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation

During 1996, the Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation forum (APEC) moved from goal-setting

activities to taking actions towards free and open trade

and investment in the region by 2020, as set forth in

the Bogor Declaration.189 APEC’s activities were

based on the framework for action outlined in the

1995 Osaka Action Agenda (OAA) which rests on the

three pillars of trade and investment liberalization;

trade and investment facilitation; and economic and

technical cooperation. APEC’s liberalization activities

focused on developing individual and collective

initiatives to fulfill the OAA commitments. APEC also

initiated 320 projects in various Working Groups and

other APEC fora, many of which involved economic

and technical cooperation.

APEC’s Work Program

In 1996, the Philippines held the chairmanship of

APEC and hosted the annual APEC Ministerial

meeting in Manila which was attended by economic

and foreign ministers from member economies. Nine

other ministerial-level meetings were also held

throughout the year including ministers in charge of

trade, finance, transportation, telecommunications,

education, energy, sustainable development,

environment and small and medium-sized

enterprises.190 APEC Senior Officials, who review the

work of APEC’s two permanent Committees—the

Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) and the

Economic Committee (EC)—met four times during

1996. In 1996, the CTI, the group responsible for

implementation of APEC’s trade and investment

agenda, was implementing and reporting on the APEC

collective actions (see explanation below). The CTI

also continued its ongoing work in other areas

including: investment (updating the APEC Investment

Guidebook); standards and conformance (completion

of a report on the alignment of standards); customs

procedures (implementation of the Customs Action

Plan); government procurement (initiation of two

surveys); dispute settlement; Tariff Data Task Force

(development of APEC Tariff Database on the

Internet/Worldwide Web); deregulation and

competition policy (review of concept paper and

conduct of workshop); rules of origin (consideration of

implementing technical rules of origin work in the

Customs Action Plan); Uruguay Round

implementation; intellectual property rights (initiation

of an Intellectual Property Contact Points list); and

mobility of businesspersons (development of an APEC

Business Travel Card).191 The CTI’s two

Subcommittees on Customs Procedures and Standards

and Conformance made substantial contributions to the

CTI’s work in these areas.

The Economic Committee, which serves as

APEC’s analytical group, provides reports on
76

economic trends and related issues in the region. In

1996, the United States prepared one of the main

products of the committee, the annual economic

outlook report. Other work of the Economic

Committee included an analysis of issues relevant to

achieving sustainable growth and equitable

development in the region. The Committee also

published The State of Economic and Technical

Cooperation in APEC, which provides an overview

and recommendations regarding cross-cutting activities

currently underway within APEC. APEC Ministers

directed the Working Groups and other fora to consider

collaborating on issues that are of a cross-cutting

nature, based on the report. APEC Ministers also

noted the high priority that issues regarding

infrastructure development had been given by a task

force under the Economic Committee, including the

publication of a compendium of “Best Practices”

developed at a Roundtable meeting hosted by the

United States and Indonesia in Seattle, July 1996.192

Progress on the APEC Leaders’ Initiative on the

Impact of Expanding Population and Economic

Growth on Food, Energy and the Environment

(FEEEP), was addressed by various APEC fora in

1996, including a Task Force on Food under the

Economic Committee. The Task Force on Food

developed a work plan in 1996 including the

appointment of lead economies (shepherds) for future

work on food supply and demand, processing and

distribution, correlation between food and the

environment and future trends in food supply and

demand. The task force will first examine regional

food issues and thereafter explore options for initiating

joint actions with other APEC fora to deal with

regional food challenges. Ministers indicated that an

overarching report on FEEEP would be prepared for

the 1997 Ministerial.193

Each of APEC’s 10 Working Groups had extensive

work programs in 1996 covering broad issue areas of

human resources development (HRD), telecommunications, transportation, tourism, energy, marine

resources, fisheries, trade and investment data review,

trade promotion and industrial science and technology.

For example, the Working Group on Human Resources

development implemented over 80 joint projects,

including the launching of a Labor Market Information

database which identifies focal points for each member

economy. The first HRD Ministerial meeting was held

in January 1996 in Manila. Another example of

Working Group activities was the adoption of

non-binding energy principles intended to reform

regional energy policies, the implementation of a

program to mobilize investment in power sector

infrastructure and the adoption of a strategic approach

to reducing the environmental impact of energy supply

and use.194

Since its initiation, APEC has sought to integrate

and encourage business participation in every level of

its work program. During 1996, one of APEC’s

priorities, as set out by President H.E. Fidel V. Ramos

of the Philippines, was to increase the engagement of

the private sector in the APEC process. The

Philippines sponsored the “APEC Business Forum” in

conjunction with the 1996 Ministerial to provide an

opportunity for networking among senior business

representatives and to define short-term private-sector

initiatives to facilitate intra-APEC cooperation.195 In

1996, the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC)

met four times and presented its flagship

recommendations to APEC Leaders on November

24.196 The recommendations included establishing a

central registry for patents and trademarks; adopting a

set of common professional standards for business

service providers; holding joint public/private sector

roundtables to develop guidelines for infrastructure

projects; developing an APEC-wide network and

providing other technical cooperation for small and

medium-sized enterprises. APEC Ministers were

directed by Leaders to work closely with ABAC in

examining ways to implement their

recommendations.197

Institutional Issues

Membership and nonmember participation issues

have been a recurring topic of discussion within APEC

as the number of requests to joint APEC have

increased. APEC’s 3-year moratorium on the

admission of new members was set to expire in 1996.

At the November Ministerial meeting in Manila,

Ministers decided not to extend the moratorium and

agreed that a set of criteria for evaluation applications

would be adopted in 1997. Based on the criteria,

APEC Ministers also decided that new members

would be announced at the 1998 Ministerial in Kaula

Lumpur and would be admitted at the 1999 Ministerial

in Auckland.198 APEC Ministers also adopted

guidelines regarding non-member participation in

APEC Working Group activities. A key element of the

guidelines is a statement indicating that, “There must

be no linkage between participation in APEC Working

Groups and any application for a full membership in

APEC. In other words, participation in a Working

Group is neither necessary nor sufficient for a

successful application to become an APEC

member.”199 In 1996, APEC Senior Officials approved

requests by Russia and Vietnam, to participate in a

one-time APEC symposium and conferences.
77

Regarding other budget and administrative issues,

APEC Ministers agreed to raise the APEC Secretariat’s

budget from $3.1 million in 1996 to $8.1 million in

1997. The Ministers also endorsed the recommendations of the Task Force on Management Issues which

are intended to facilitate relations between the Secretariat and other APEC fora.200

Manila Action Plan for APEC

1996 (MAPA)

One of the most significant APEC actions in 1996

was the endorsement of the Manila Action Plan for

APEC 1996 (MAPA) by APEC Leaders at their fourth

annual meeting on November 25.201 The MAPA

integrates the Collective Action Plans (CAPs), the

Individual Action Plans (IAPs), Progress Reports on

Joint Activities of APEC members and various APEC

fora, as discussed below.

In accordance with the OAA, APEC began

developing two sets of CAPs and Individual Action

Plans (IAPs), each of which cover the 15 specific

areas in the OAA for liberalization.202 During 1996,

APEC worked on developing standardized guidelines

and formats for the action plans. The CAPs consist of

summary reports and matrices indicating actions that

APEC members have agreed to take as a group to

advance liberalization in each of the 15 issue areas.

APEC Ministers approved the CAPs at their November

meeting in Manila. Ministers noted examples of

outputs contained in the CAPs that will contribute to

business facilitation in the region including: the APEC

Tariff Database, APEC publications on members’

investment regimes, customs procedures, rules of

origin, business travel, government procurement and

intellectual property rights, an Umbrella Mutual

Recognition Arrangement of Conformity Assessment

for Food and Food Products, an Arrangement for the

Exchange of Information on Toy Safety, a guide for the

alignment of members’ standards with international

standards, and the harmonization of tariff nomenclature

and other customs procedures. In 1997, the CAPs will

be subject to review and expansion.203

The IAPs contain individual members’ voluntary

commitments or concrete steps towards fulfilling the

OAA’s goals.204 Each of the eighteen economies

submitted the first draft of their IAPs at the Senior

Officials Meeting held in Cebu in May 1996. At that

time, the content, quality and format of the IAPs

varied. During the period May through November,

members improved and reformatted their IAPs in

accordance with guidelines adopted by Senior

Officials. At the Ministerial meeting in Manila, APEC

Ministers recognized the IAPs as “a credible beginning

to the process of liberalization and noted the rolling

nature of the IAPs.”205 The Ministers noted the

importance of “ensuring transparency of and

comparability among the respective action plans and

their implementation in conformity with the principles

set out in the OAA.”206 In their declaration, APEC

Leaders indicated that APEC was committed to

improving the individual action plans, including

comparability and comprehensiveness and taking into

account the views of the private sector.207 Differences

among APEC members regarding interpretation of

“comparability” have emerged. The developed APEC

economies interpret this principle to mean that

relatively open economies are required to take fewer

steps towards liberalization than those that are

relatively closed. These economies believe that the

more closed economies must raise their level of

liberalization and “close the gap” with the more open

economies. The APEC developing economies, by

contrast, view comparability as meaning that each

economy should take relatively the same number of

liberalizing actions, implying that more “WTO-plus”

commitments should be made by countries such as the

United States. This difference in opinion is expected

to become more important in 1997 when member

economies will begin implementing their IAPs and

engaging in consultations with other economies.

Another action that APEC took with regard to

trade and investment liberalization was to reaffirm the

complimentarity of APEC with the global

liberalization process, indicating that APEC seeks to be

a catalyst for further liberalization. In their meetings

throughout the year, Senior Officials noted the

importance of APEC in providing substantive support

for the WTO at the Singapore Ministerial Conference

to be held in December, but there were some

differences among members about the content of any

official statement. In November, APEC Ministers

issued a relatively strong statement emphasizing

support for the success of the WTO Ministerial

conference. Ministers stressed the importance of full,

effective and timely implemention of the Uruguay

Round agreements and commitments; endorsed

APEC’s role in providing technical assistance to

member economies; emphasized the need to complete

ongoing negotiations on financial services, basic

telecommunications and rules of origin within the

agreed timeframe; expressed support for the built-in

agenda and noted the importance that regional trade

arrangements be consistent with the WTO.208 APEC
78

Leaders referenced many of the same issues with

somewhat weaker language in their declaration.209

In their statements of support for the WTO, APEC

Leaders and Ministers called for the conclusion of an

Information Technology Agreement (ITA) at the WTO

Ministerial Conference that would “substantially

eliminate tariffs by the year 2000.”210 Gaining APEC

support for an ITA was a major objective of U.S.

officials. As originally proposed to APEC, the ITA

would eliminate tariffs on information technology

products by the year 2000, beginning in 1997. During

discussions among APEC Senior Officials at their

meetings in Davao (August) and Manila (October),

there was initial support for the agreement among most

members, however, some economies favored broader

product coverage and a phased in timetable for

elimination of tariffs.211 By the time of APEC’s

November 1996 Ministerial meetings, support for total

elimination of tariffs had apparently weakened

somewhat due to concerns by some of the developing

APEC economies and the final language included in

the Leaders’ Declaration was that tariffs would be

“substantially” eliminated. However, the United States

did secure support for the ITA during the final day of

the meeting, and members agreed to include a deadline

of the year 2000.212 The momentum was carried forth

to the WTO Ministerial meeting in Singapore where

members agreed to an ITA.213
79

ENDNOTES

1 These estimates are presented in USITC,

Potential Impact on the U.S. Economy and Selected

Industries of the North American Free Trade

Agreement, USITC Publication 2596, January 1993.

2 The Commission last met on March 20, 1997.

3 WTO, Annual Report 1996, Volume II, p. 22.

4 Data on U.S. trade with major trading partners

and the world are provided in ch. 1.

5 As reported by the Office of Textiles and

Apparel (OTEXA) of the U.S. Department of

Commerce.

6 Products created by production sharing are

eligible to reenter the United States under chapter 98

of the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS). Because the

United States levies duties only on the value added

in Mexico and the qualifying U.S. input returns free

of duty, the overall duty payable under this import

category is effectively reduced. See USITC,

Production Sharing: Use of U.S. Components and

Materials in Foreign Assembly Operations,

1992-1995, USITC publication 3032, March 1997.

7 The maquiladora program permits imports of

raw material, containers, packing material, fuel,

lubricants, spare parts, equipment, and machinery

without paying import duties or the value-added tax,

provided those imports were used to produce goods

for export. U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Mexican Maquiladora Reforms—Preparing for 2000,”

message reference No. 14891, prepared by U.S.

Embassy, Mexico City, Nov. 29, 1996.

8 However, the Government of Mexico provides

incentives to increase the domestic content of

maquiladora production. See also USITC, Production

Sharing: Use of U.S. Components and Materials in

Foreign Assembly Operations, 1991-1994, USITC

publication 2966, May 1996, p. 4-13.

9 Ibid., pp. 4-7 to 4-10.

10 See also USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP,

1995, USITC publication 2971, p. 31.

11 See also USITC, Production Sharing: Use of

U.S. Components and Materials in Foreign Assembly

Operations, 1992-1995, USITC publication 2966, May

1996, pp. 4-13 to 4-22.

12 USTR, “Written Testimony by Ambassador Ira

Shapiro before the Subcommittee on International

Economic Policy and Trade of the House

International Relations Committee,” Mar. 5, 1997, p.

2.

13 USTR, “Written Testimony of Regina K. Vargo,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the

Western Hemisphere before the Subcommittee on

International Economic Policy and Trade, House

International Relations Committee,” Mar. 5, 1997, p.

2.

14 USTR, 1997 Trade Policy Agenda and 1996

Annual Report, p. 198.

15 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimate Report,

p. 239. With implementation of the fourth round of

tariff cuts on Jan. 1, 1997, the average Mexican tariff

on U.S. products fell to 2.9 percent, while the

average U.S. tariff on Mexican products fell to 0.8

percent. USTR, 1997 Trade Policy Agenda and

1996 Annual Report, p. 148.

16 U.S. Department of State telegram, “National

Trade Estimate Report-Mexico,” message reference

No. 799, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City,

Jan. 24, 1997.

17 For background on this Mexican tariff increase,

see USITC, The Year in Trade, 1995, USITC

Publication 2971, p. 28.

18 The Mexican decree was published in the

Dec. 12, 1996 edition of the Diario Oficial. See the

safeguard action section of ch. 5 for details of the

U.S. measure.

19 U.S. Department of State telegram, “National

Trade Estimate Report-Mexico,” message reference

No. 799, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City,

Jan. 24, 1997.

20 USTR, 1997 Trade Policy Agenda and 1996

Annual Report, p. 198.

21 On January 14, 1997, Mexico formally

requested formation of a NAFTA dispute settlement

panel to examine its concerns over the U.S.

broomcorn broom action. USTR, “Update:

Developments in International Trade Dispute

Settlement,” Feb. 10, 1997, p. 16. See the

safeguard action section of ch. 5 for details on the

broomcorn brooms dispute.

22 USTR, “1995 Report to the NAFTA

Commission from the NAFTA Committee on Trade in

Goods,” Nov. 22, 1996. Agreement on an initial round

of tariff acceleration was announced by the NAFTA

Free Trade Commission on Mar. 20, 1997.

23 In early 1997, the U.S. Treasury Department

announced that it was seeking approval from OMB to

conduct a prototype test for trade among the United

States, Canada, and Mexico that would improve

handling of land border commercial transactions via

increased electronic exchange of data. The step

was a direct result of cooperation among national

customs administrations under NAFTA auspices.

BNA, “North American Trade Automation Prototype

Data,” International Trade Reporter, Vol. 14, No. 8,

Feb. 19, 1997.

24 For background on the law, see U.S.

Department of State telegram, Mexican Customs

Reform: Generally Positive Implications for

Business,” message reference No. 1680, prepared

by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Feb. 2, 1996.

25 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimate Report

on Foreign Trade Barriers, p. 240.

26 U.S. Department of State telegram, “1996

Trade Act Report: Mexico,” message reference No.

11492, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Nov.

18, 1996.

27 U.S. Department of State telegram, “National

Trade Estimate Report-Mexico,” message reference

No. 799, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City,
80

Jan. 24, 1997. In addition, more recent changes,

implemented Mar. 1, 1997, will subject a substantially

higher number of commercial shipments to

secondary, i.e., two random, customs inspections.

U.S. Department of State telegram, “Possible Border

Slowdown,” message reference No. 2053, prepared

by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Feb. 27, 1997.

28 The U.S. International Trade Commission

provided USTR with advice on possible changes to

NAFTA rules of origin for chemicals that would

simplify such rules on Sept. 15, 1995. Such

changes were implemented in the new origin rules

promulgated in the United States by Presidential

Proclamation 6857, To Modify the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States, to Provide Rules of

Origin Under the North American Free Trade

Agreement for Affected Goods, and For Other

Purposes, 60 F.R. 64815, Dec. 15, 1995.

29 USTR requested, via a letter dated Sept. 6,

1996, advice from the U.S. International Trade

Commission on other proposed modifications to

NAFTA origin rules. A report was provided October

3, 1996. These changes were agreed by NAFTA

partners at the Mar. 20, 1997 NAFTA Commission

meeting. Liberalizing changes in origin rules for

additional products (certain non-stainless alloy steels,

certain petroleum products, photocopiers,

headphones, alcoholic beverages, and other

products) are under consideration.

30 U.S. Department of Treasury, “Summary of

Developments: Working Group on Rules of Origin,”

Nov. 20, 1996.

31 The rules are published at 61 CFR 28982,

June 6, 1996.

32 CPC International Inc. vs. United States, 933

F. Supp. 1093, Slip Op. 96-106, No. 95-02-00144,

July 8, 1996.

33 U.S. Department of Treasury official, telephone

conversation with USITC staff, Apr. 8, 1997.

34 CPC International Inc. vs. United States, U.S.

Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 97-1, No.

95-00144, Jan. 6, 1997.

35 “Secondary petrochemicals” have not been

clearly defined by the Government of Mexico.

However, the concept is understood to include the

production of propylene, ethylene and other

petroleum derivatives.

36 President Zedillo’s announcement in March

1995, at the 57th anniversary of the Mexican oil

industry’s nationalization, that the State petrochemical

industry will be put up for sale.

37 U.S. Department of State telegram, “1996

Trade Act Report: Mexico” message reference No.

14492, prepared by U.S. Embassy Mexico City, Nov.

18, 1996 and U.S. Department of Treasury, “Report

to Congress Pursuant to section 403 of the Mexican

Debt Disclosure Act of 1995”, Dec. 1996, p.5.

38 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mexico:

Petrochemicals Privatization,” message reference No.

1262, Feb. 7, 1997. The privatization plans, affecting

4 facilities presently owned by PEMEX, were

announced in the Jan. 30, 1997 edition of Mexico’s

Diario Oficial.

39 “Agriculture Leads NAFTA Trade Growth,”

North American Free Trade & Investment Report,

July 15, 1996, p.13.

40 “NAFTA Agricultural Trade to Grow,” North

American Free Trade & Investment Report, Oct. 31,

1996, p.10.

41 See the Canada section of ch. 4 for details.

42 See the Mexico section of ch. 4 for details.

43 See the safeguard action section of ch. 5 for

details.

44 See the dispute settlement section, below, for

details.

45 Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the NAFTA

Committee on Agricultural Trade, June 19, 1996,

Ottawa.

46 NAFTA Committee on Agricultural Trade, Draft

Report to the Commission, June 19, 1996.

47 NAFTA Committee on Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures, Report to the Commission,

June 21, 1996.

48 Generally speaking, the tariff and non-tariff

barrier provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade

Agreement continue to apply to U.S.-Canada

agriculture trade. Trilaterally Agreed Executive

Summary of NAFTA Agreement, p. 12. With the

exception of Canadian tariffs on dairy, poultry, eggs,

margarine and barley, and U.S. products subject to

tariff-rate quotas (dairy, sugar and sugar-containing

products, and peanut butter) all agricultural trade

between the United States and Canada will be

duty-free beginning in 1998. USTR, “NAFTA and

Agricultural Trade, NAFTA Information Package,” Jan.

23, 1997.

49 U.S. Department of State telegram, “1996

Trade Act Report: Mexico,” message reference No.

14492, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Nov.

18, 1996.

50 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Bilateral

Trade Issues: Discussion,” message reference No.

3156, prepared by U.S. Embassy Mexico City, Mar.

12, 1996.

51 The proposed action was announced by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture in 61 FR 69052, Dec.

31, 1996.

52 See the Mexico section of ch. 4 for details.

53 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Agricultural Working Group,” message reference No.

6517, prepared by U.S. Embassy Mexico City, May

16, 1996.

54 NAFTA Committee on Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures, Report to the Commission,

June 21, 1996.

55 USTR official, meeting with USITC staff, Feb.

23, 1997.

56 Such as citrus, Christmas trees, cherries, cling

peaches, potatoes, apples, apricots, and nectarines.

On Feb. 20, 1997, Mexico’s agreement to allow

imports of U.S. sweet cherries from Washington,

Oregon and California was announced by U.S.

Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. See also,

Mexican Embassy, SECOFI-NAFTA Office, “Mexico

Lifts Ban on U.S. Cherries, NAFTA Works, February

1997, p. 1.
81

57 U.S. Department of State telegram, “National

Trade Estimate Report-Mexico,” (draft), message

reference No. 799, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Mexico City, Jan. 24, 1997.

58 USTR, 1997 Trade Policy Agenda and 1996

Annual Report, p. 198.

59 “Standards Still A NAFTA Problem,” North

American Free Trade and Investment Report, Dec.

22, 1995.

60 For background see, U.S. Department of

Commerce, “Mexican Textile and Apparel Labeling

Rules for 1996,” NAFTA Facts, Document No. 9007,

Feb. 29, 1996.

61 “Textile Labeling Rule Postponed,” North

American Free Trade and Investment Report, July

31, 1996, p. 11.

62 “Mexico’s New Labeling Standard Catches

Textile Exporters Off Guard,” International Trade

Reporter, Nov. 29, 1995, p. 1954.

63 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mexico

Postpones Implementation of Two Textile Labeling

Provisions,” message reference No. 9340, prepared

by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, July 19, 1996 and

U.S. Department of Commerce, “Suspension of

Certain Textile and Apparel Labeling Requirements,”

NAFTA Facts, Document No. 9004 (no date).

64 The final rules were published in the Feb. 25,

1997 Diario Oficial. Product content information

about the prime material used in the product (but not

accessories) will be required on labels, as well as

information on the origin of the product itself (not

components), care, and sizing. The definition of

textiles was also clarified.

65 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Postponement

of Mexican Labeling Requirements for Consumer

Goods, Processed Foods, and Non-Alcoholic

Beverages,” NAFTA Facts, Document No. 9005,

Sept. 4, 1996. The notice of delay was published in

the Sept. 3, 1996 Diario Oficial.

66 BNA, “Draft Guidelines Leave Questions on

Mexican Labeling, IBC Says,” International Trade

Reporter, July 10, 1996, p. 1139.

67 The rules were published in the February 24,

1997 Diario Oficial. For background, see, U.S.

Department of State telegram, “Mexicans Publish

Tariff Classifications and Procedures for Labeling,”

message reference No. 1927, prepared by U.S.

Embassy, Mexico City, Feb. 25, 1997.

68 U.S. Department of State telegrams, “Possible

Border Slowdown,” message reference No. 2053 and

“Industry Round table on Mexican Standards Issues,”

message reference No. 1589, prepared by U.S.

Embassy, Mexico City, Feb. 27, 1997 and Feb. 14,

1997, respectively.

69 Some reports suggest Mexico has agreed to

this notion. See, for example, BNA, “Mexico Lists

Goods Subject to Labeling, ‘Soft Enforcement’ of

Rules Agreed Upon,” International Trade Reporter,

Vol. 14, No. 9, Feb. 26, 1997.

70 USTR official, interview by USITC staff, Feb.

23, 1997.

71 U.S. Department of State telegram, “GOM Still

Not Ready to Provide Draft Health Regulations for

USG Comment,” message reference No. 3891,

prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Mar. 20,

1996.

72 U.S. Department of State telegram, “SECOFI’s

Marquez Pessimistic on Changes to Pending Health

Regulations,” message reference No. 2100, prepared

by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Feb. 28, 1997.

73 USTR official, interview by USITC staff, Feb.

23, 1997 and U.S. Department of Commerce,

“Summary of NAFTA Standards Meeting, Mexico City,

Mar. 7-8, 1996,” Mar. 13, 1996.

74 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Overview of

Mexico’s Standards System,” NAFTA Facts,

Document No. 9000.

75 No other U.S. trade agreement contains such

an obligation, which is designed to make it easier for

U.S. firms to sell regulated products to Mexico.

76 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimate Report

on Foreign Trade Barriers, p. 241.

77 USTR, “U.S. and Mexico Agree to Mechanism

for Streamlining Approval of Tires,” USTR Press

Release, No. 96-25, Mar. 18, 1996.

78 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mexican

Tires Standards, At Last,” message reference No.

11587, prepared by U.S. Embassy Mexico City, Sept.

5, 1996.

79 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mexican

Certification Policy Revision Around the Corner,”

message reference No. 13208, prepared by U.S.

Embassy, Mexico City, Oct. 17, 1996.

80 An English language translation of the new

regulations is available from U.S. Department of

Commerce, “New Draft Regulations on Product

Certification in Mexico,” NAFTA Facts, Document No.

9015, Jan. 21, 1997.

81 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mexico

Publishes Standards Certification Procedures for

Comment,” message reference no. 60, prepared by

U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Jan. 3, 1997.

82 USTR, Status Report of NAFTA Committees

and Working Groups, Dec. 13, 1996, p. 4.

83 The U.S. notice can be found at 61 CFR

28636, June 5, 1996.

84 Committee on Standards-Related Measures,

Report to the NAFTA Commission, Jan. 1,

1994-December 31, 1996, Attachment II.

85 USTR, Annual Report on Discrimination in

Foreign Procurement, Apr. 30, 1996, p. 9. Mexico

issued guidelines in 1996 intended to ensure more

consistent compliance with NAFTA procurement

obligations. U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Foreign Government Procurement Practices—Title

VII Report—Mexico,” message reference No. 4095,

prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Mar. 20,

1996. Mexico is also taking steps to implement the

Organization of American States’ Anti-Corruption

Agreement. U.S. Department of State telegram,

“SECOFI on WTO Issues: Government Procurement,

Investment, Maritime,” message reference No.

Mexico 8520, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico

City, June 28, 1996.
82

86 According to NAFTA, the schedule was to be

finalized by July 31, 1995.

87 1994-96 Report on the NAFTA Government

Procurement Working Group, Feb. 6, 1997.

88 USTR, Annual Report on Discrimination in

Foreign Procurement, Apr. 30, 1996, p. 9.

89 “Response to Request for Information on

Foreign Government Procurement,” Prepared by

American Embassy, Ottawa, message reference No.

909, Feb. 23, 1996. U.S. firms have reportedly

captured a steady share of the Canadian government

procurement market. U.S. Department of Commerce,

“Testimony of Regina K. Vargo, Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Commerce for the Western Hemisphere

before the Subcommittee on International Economic

Policy and Trade, House International Relations

Committee,” Mar. 5, 1997, p. 2.

90 USTR official, interview with USITC staff, Feb.

24, 1997.

91 For further background on 1995 developments,

see USITC, The Year in Trade, 1996, USITC

Publication 2971, p. 56.

92 USTR, “Update: Developments in U.S.

International Dispute Settlement,” Dec. 1, 1996, p.

13.

93 “Senate Ties Truck Licenses to Mexican Drug

Efforts,” North American Free Trade and Investment

Report, Feb. 15, 1996, p. 12.

94 “No U.S.-Mexican Agreement on Trucking,”

North American Free Trade and Investment Report,

May 31, 1996, p. 8.

95 U.S. Department of State telegram, “U.S. and

Mexican Officials Meet to Discuss Transportation

Issues,” message reference No. 414, prepared by

U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, July 11, 1996.

96 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v.

Pena, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia, No. 95-1063, Oct. 18, 1996.

97 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO),

Commercial Trucking: Safety and Infrastructure

Issues Under the North American Free Trade

Agreement, GAO/RCED-96-61, February 1996.

98 “Key GOP Lawmakers Question Truck Delay,”

North American Free Trade and Investment Report,

Jan. 31, 1996.

99 “California Governor Urges Clinton to Open

Border to Trucking,” North American Free Trade and

Investment Report, Oct. 15, 1996, p. 11.

100 David Barnes, “Truckers Criticize NAFTA

Limits at Mexican Border As Broken Promise,” Traffic

World, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, Nov. 4,

1996.

101 Ibid. The issue of small parcel deliveries by

U.S. companies to Mexico has also been discussed

in USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC

publication 2971, p. 57. Bilateral discussions on this

matter continued throughout 1996.

102 BNA, “NAII Urges Clinton to Keep Moratorium

on Mexican Trucks,” International Trade Reporter,

Vol. 14, Jan. 29, 1997, p. 183.

103 USTR, Status Report of NAFTA Committees

and Working Groups, Dec. 13, 1996, p. 4.

104 USTR official, telephone conversation with

USITC staff, Jan. 31, 1997.

105 Draft Report of the NAFTA Working Group on

Investment and Services, Jan. 28, 1997, p. 1.

106 “NAFTA Parties Agree to Exceptions,” North

American Free Trade and Investment Report, Apr.

15, 1996, p. 14.

107 USTR official, telephone conversation with

USITC staff, Jan. 31, 1997.

108 “U.S. Backs Right of Firms to Bid on Mexican

Pension Management,” North American Free Trade

and Investment Report, May 31, 1996, p. 10.

109 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Advances in New Mexican Pension Fund,” message

reference No. 1110, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Mexico City, Feb. 3, 1997.

110 “Mexico Updates NAFTA Limits on Foreign

Institutional Capital,” International Trade Reporter,

Nov. 13, 1996, p. 1751.

111 USTR official, telephone conversation with

USITC staff, Jan. 31, 1997. For background see,

“Engineers Reach NAFTA License Pact,” U.S.-Mexico

Free Trade Reporter, June 30, 1995, p. 5.

112 USTR, telephone conversation with USITC

staff, Jan. 31, 1997.

113 “NAFTA Trilateral Committee Said Nearing

Consultant Proposal Pact,” International Trade

Reporter, Sept. 6, 1995.

114 Namely, architects, nurses, and accountants.

Draft Report of the NAFTA Working Group on

Investment and Services, Jan. 28, 1997, p. 2.

115 USTR, “Annual Review of

Telecommunications Trade Agreement Under

Section1377 of the 1988 Trade Act Completed, ”

press release 96-36, April 3, 1996.

116 U.S. Department of State telegram “1377

Trade Review - Demarche to Mexico,” message

reference No. 52716, prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Mar. 14, 1996.

117 For background, see, “NAFTA Telecom

Industries Still Divided on Equipment Standard;

Dispute Looms,” International Trade Reporter, Dec.

11, 1996, pp. 1901-1903.

118 USTR, 1997 Trade Policy Agenda and 1996

Annual Report, p. 149 and USTR official, telephone

conversation with USITC staff, April 8, 1997.

119 USTR, “Trade Policy Staff Committee:

Request for Comments Concerning Compliance with

Telecommunications Trade Agreements,” reprinted in

61 CFR 66068, Dec. 16, 1996. For background see,

“USTR Seeks Public Comments on Effectiveness of

Telecom Accords,” International Trade Reporter, Dec.

18, 1996, pp. 1950-1951.

120 U.S. Department of State telegram “1377

Trade Review—Demarche to Mexico,” message

reference No. 52716, prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Mar. 14, 1996.

121 “Mexico Will Work to Avoid Conflicts Under

NAFTA on Telecom, Official Says,” International

Trade Reporter, Dec. 18, 1996, p. 1958.
83

122 “NAFTA Telecom Industries Still Divided on

Equipment Standard; Dispute Looms,” International

Trade Reporter, Dec. 11, 1996, p. 1901.

123 NAFTA Committee on Standards-Related

Measures, Report to the NAFTA Commission, Jan. 1,

1994-Dec. 31, 1996, Attachment IV.

124 The CCT’s recommendations were

transmitted to USTR on Jan. 22, 1997. The CCT

produced a consensus list of mandatory parameters,

as well as those that should remain voluntary, if a

prior tripartite governmental agreement of the NAFTA

terms is upheld. NAFTA Committee on

Standards-Related Measures, Report to the NAFTA

Commission, Jan. 1-1994-December 31, 1996,

Attachment IV. For background, see, “Mexico Will

Work to Avoid Conflicts Under NAFTA on Telecom,

Official Says,” International Trade Reporter, Dec. 18,

1996, p.1958.

125 U.S. Department of State telegram, “1996

Trade Act Report: Mexico,” message reference No.

014492, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City,

Nov. 18, 1996. Mexico has not acted upon

applications for such protection, however.

126 U.S. Department of State telegram, “National

Trade Estimate Report-Mexico,” message reference

No. 799, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City,

Jan. 24, 1997.

127 U.S. Department of State telegram, “1996

Trade Act Report: Mexico,” message reference No.

14492, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Nov.

18, 1996.

128 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mexican

IPR Enforcement Improving,” message reference No.

5723, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Apr.

25, 1996.

129 USTR, 1997 Trade Policy Agenda and 1996

Annual Report, p. 198.

130 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“U.S.-Mexico IPR Group,” message reference No.

284364, prepared by U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC, Dec. 9, 1995.

131 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Third

Meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Working Group,”

message reference No. 9452, prepared by U.S.

Embassy Mexico City, July 22, 1996 and USTR

official, interview with USITC staff, Feb. 23, 1997.

132 “Business Software Alliance Considers

NAFTA Case Over Mexican IP Compliance,”

International Trade Reporter, Oct. 10, 1996, p.1675.

133 “Mexico’s Congress To Consider Adding Stiff

Penalties to Copyright Law,” International Trade

Reporter, Nov. 20, 1996, p.1785.

134 USTR official, telephone conversation with

USITC staff, Feb. 7, 1997 and USTR, 1997 Trade

Policy Agenda and 1996 Annual Report, p. 198.

135 U.S. Department of State telegram, “USG

Comments on Copyright Law,” message reference

No. 24057, prepared by U.S. Department of State,

Washington, Feb. 8, 1997.

136 U.S. Department of State telegram, “National

Trade Estimate Report-Mexico,” message reference

No. 799, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Mexico City,

Jan. 24, 1997.

137 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Trade

Act Report for Canada,” message reference No.

5108, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, Nov. 19,

1996.

138 U.S. Department of State telegram “Update

on Amendments to Canadian Copyright,” message

reference No. 4694, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Ottawa, Oct. 22, 1996.

139 NAFTA Secretariat, U.S. Section, “Statistical

Summary of Dispute Settlement Panels Under the

North American Free Trade Agreement,” Dec. 30,

1996.

140 USTR, Update: Developments in U.S.

International Dispute Settlement, Mar. 1, 1997, p. 20.

141 “Chapter 19 Should Not Be Extended, Dole,

Other Senators Tell USTR Kantor,” International

Trade Reporter, Aug. 23, 1995, p. 1410.

142 “NAFTA on the Dock—Again,” The Journal of

Commerce, Jan. 13, 1997, p. 6-A.

143 American Coalition for Competitive Trade,

Inc., “Coalition Files Case Challenging NAFTA;

Charges Violation of U.S. Constitution,” Jan. 16,

1997.

144 USTR, telephone conversation with USITC

staff, Jan. 31, 1997.

145 See the Mexico section of ch. 5 for details.

146 See the safeguard action section of ch. 5 for

details.

147 The Libertad Act is discussed in ch. 6.

148 USTR, “Update: Developments in U.S.

International Dispute Settlement,” Dec. 1, 1996.

149 USTR, Update: Developments in U.S.

International Trade Dispute Settlement, Mar. 6, 1997,

p. 19.

150 U.S. Department of State, Updated

Information on NAFTA Advisory Committee on

Private Commercial Disputes, Nov. 19, 1996 and

U.S. Department of State, NAFTA Committee on

Private Commercial Disputes: Background for NAFTA

Free Trade Commission Meeting, Apr. 25, 1996.

151 The U.S. Committee members were named

on Jan. 16, 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

“Glickman Names U.S. Members to NAFTA Advisory

Committee,” Ag News, Release No. 0013.97, Jan.

16, 1997.

152 The papers are available on the CEC’s

Internet Home Page (www.cec.org). “NAFTA Trade,

Environment Link to be Examined at CEC Meetings,”

International Trade Reporter, June 26, 1996, p. 1055.

153 “NAFTA Officials, Regulators Discuss

Environmental Reform,” The Journal of Commerce,

Dec. 9, 1996, p. 24.

154 BNA, “NAFTA Commission to Create

Database to Help Environmental Technology Users,”

International Trade Reporter, Aug. 14, 1996, p. 1307.

155 USTR, “NAFTA and the Environment,” fact

sheet, NAFTA Information Package, posted on

USTR’s Internet home page, Aug. 13, 1996.
84

156 “Evidence of NAFTA Environment Impact

Expected by End of 1996, Official Says,” International

Trade Reporter, July 10, 1996, p. 1145.

157 EPA official, telephone conversation with

USITC staff, Jan. 28, 1997.

158 CEC Secretariat, Final Communique: North

American Environment Ministers Accelerate

Environmental Protection Efforts, Aug. 2, 1996.

159 Public Citizen, NAFTA’s Broken Promises:

The Border Betrayed, January 1996.

160 Carl Pope, “Opinion: NAFTA’s Broken

Promises,” The Journal of Commerce, Dec. 6, 1996,

p. 15.

161 One petition asked the CEC to prepare a

factual record examining an act signed into law by

President Clinton April 1, 1995 that rescinded funds

from the Department of Interior and precluded the

Department from listing new species or critical

habitats under the Endangered Species Act. The

Secretariat said the measure was outside the

purview of Articles 14 and 15 of the accord, which

addresses acts by agencies charged with enforcing

laws, not new laws themselves. “NAFTA

Environmental Commission Rejects Petition,”

U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Reporter, Sept. 30, 1995, p.

5. On December 12, 1995, the CEC rejected

another petition, relating to a Salvage Timber Rider

easing restrictions on logging signed by President

Clinton in July 1995, on similar grounds. “NAFTA

Environment Commission Refuses to Consider

Timber Submission,” North American Free Trade and

Investment Report, Dec. 22, 1995, p. 11.

162 USTR, “NAFTA and the Environment,” fact

sheet, NAFTA Information Package, posted on

USTR’s Internet homepage, Aug. 13, 1996.

163 “NAFTA Environmental Commission to

Examine Mexican Dock,” North American Free Trade

and Investment Report, June 15, 1996, p. 12.

164 CEC Secretariat, North American

Environment Ministers Take Next Step on Cozumel,

Aug. 2, 1996.

165 “NADBank Projects,” International Trade

Reporter, Dec. 11, 1996, p. 1908.

166 USTR, “Testimony of Ambassador Ira Shapiro

before the Subcommittee on International Economic

Policy and Trade of the House International Relations

Committee,” Mar. 5, 1997, p. 8.

167 GAO, International Environment:

Environmental Infrastructure Needs in the U.S.

Mexican Border Region Remain Unmet,

GAO/RCED-96-179.

168 “GAO Says Mexican Border Cleanup Lags,”

North American Free Trade and Investment Report,

Aug. 15, 1996, p. 11.

169 “NADBank to Seek U.S. Private Loans for

Mexican Infrastructure Projects,” North American Free

Trade and Investment Report, Jan. 15, 1996, p. 20.

170 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“NADBank and BECC: Views of Alfredo Phillips

Olmedo,” message reference No. 1608, prepared by

U.S. Embassy, Mexico City, Feb. 1, 1996.

171 Labor in NAFTA Countries, Bulletin of the

Commission for Labor Cooperation, Vol. 1, No. 3,

Oct. 1996, pp. 1-4.

172 “Public Hearing Set on Charges Against

Sprint,” North American Free Trade and Investment

Report, Jan. 30, 1996, p. 13.

173 “Labor Ministers Review Study on Plant

Closings,” North American Free Trade and

Investment Report, Dec. 15, 1996, p. 12.

174 USTR, “Testimony of Ambassador Ira Shapiro

before the Subcommittee on International Economic

Policy and Trade of the House International Relations

Committee,” Mar. 5, 1997, p. 7.

175 “Ministerial Consultations,” Labor in NAFTA

Countries, Bulletin of the Commission for Labor

Cooperation, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1996, p. 6.

176 “U.S. Unit to Review Labor Charges Involving

Mexican Government Workers,” International Trade

Daily, Nov. 1, 1996.

177 Regional trade agreements in the context of

multilateral trading rules are discussed in greater

detail in ch. 2.

178 WTO, Working Parties on Agreements

Notified Under Art. XXIV of GATT 1947, July 18,

1995, WT/REG4/2, (95-2061).

179 WTO, Working Party on the North American

Free Trade Agreement, Aug. 3, 1995,

(95-2308),WT/REG4/3.

180 WTO, Working Party on the North American

Free Trade Agreement: Questions and Replies, June

23, 1995, WT/REG4/1, (95-1677) contains 232

questions and associated replies and WTO, Working

Party on the North American Free Trade Agreement:

Questions and Replies—Goods Corrigendum, Aug.

23, 1996, WT/REG4/1/add.1/Corr.1 (96-3338)

contains further responses to 2 questions.

181 The activities of this committee are discussed

in greater detail in ch. 2.

182 For more details, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC publication 2971, pp.

32-34.

183 This step was, a Canadian background paper

noted, “consistent with the Canadian government’s

longstanding objective to reform and eventually

eliminate the use of antidumping duties within

NAFTA.” As quoted in BNA, “Canada to Use

Free-Trade Agreement with Chile to Press U.S. on

NAFTA Accession, Chretien Says,” International

Trade Reporter, Nov. 20, 1996, pp. 1782-1783.

184 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Canada

Signs Free Trade Agreement with Chile,” message

reference No. 5105, prepared by U.S. Embassy

Ottawa, Nov. 19, 1996.

185 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Canada

and Chile Sign NAFTA-Style Side Agreements on

Environment and Labor,” message reference No.

00494, prepared by U.S. Embassy Ottawa, Feb. 7,

1997, and Government of Canada, Department of

Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “Canada and

Chile Sign Free Trade Agreement,” Press Release,

Nov. 18, 1996, found at Florida International

University Americas website

http://americas.fiu.edu/documents/96/1118.htm.
85

186 Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action,

reprinted in Business America, Dec. 1994, pp. 10-13.

For additional information on the 1994 Summit of the

Americas, see The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994,

USITC publication 2894, pp. 39-41.

187 For more detailed information on the

establishment of the FTAA working groups, see The

Year in Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC publication 2971,

pp. 35-36.

188 Joint Declaration: Summit of the Americas

Second Ministerial Trade Meeting, Cartagena,

Colombia, Mar. 21, 1996.

189 APEC, “APEC Economic Leaders’ Declaration

of Common Resolve,” Bogor, Indonesia, Nov. 15,

1994.

190 “Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC),

Part I: A Short History,” National Center for APEC,

Feb. 6, 1996.

191 APEC Committee on Trade and Investment,

“Chair’s Summary Record of Discussion,” (February

10-11, 1996), pp. 1-10.

192 APEC, “Joint Statement of the Eighth APEC

Ministerial Meeting,” APEC 96 M/M, Nov. 22-23,

1996, p. 15.

193 Ibid, pp. 15-16.

194 Ibid., pp. 8-10.

195 “The APEC Business Forum,” briefing paper

presented at “APEC 1996: What’s In It for

Business,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington,

DC, July 24, 1996.

196 ABAC was established in 1995 by APEC

Leaders as a permanent private sector advisory

committee consisting of three representatives from

each member economy.

197 APEC, “APEC Economic Leaders’

Declaration: From Vision to Action,” Subic,

Philippines, Nov. 25, 1996, p. 4.

198 APEC, “Joint Statement of the Eighth APEC

Ministerial Meeting,” APEC, 96/MM, Nov. 2-23, 1996,

p. 18.

199 APEC, “Consolidated Guidelines on

Non-Member Participation in APEC Working Group

Activities,” October 1996, p. 2.

200 Ibid, pp. 17-18.

201 APEC, “APEC Economic Leaders’

Declaration: From Vision to Action,” Subic,

Philippines, Nov. 25, 1996.

202 The fifteen issue areas include tariffs,

nontariff measures, services, investment, standards

and conformance, customs procedures, intellectual

property rights, competition policy, government

procurement, deregulation, rules of origin, dispute

mediation, mobility of business people,

implementation of Uruguay Round outcomes, and

information gathering and analysis.

203 APEC, “Joint Statement of the Eight APEC

Ministerial Meeting,” APEC 96/MM, Nov. 22-23, 1996,

pp. 4-5.

204 The process of employing voluntary efforts by

individual economies and collective actions has

been labeled “concerted unilateral liberalization”

whereby a series of principles and guidelines agreed

to by APEC economies are used to guide individual

APEC economies’ actions. Ibid.

205 Ibid., p. 3.

206 Ibid. The OAA rests on the three pillars of

trade and investment liberalization; facilitation; and

economic and technical cooperation. The principles

include: WTO-consistency; comparability;

non-discrimination; transparency; standstill;

simultaneous star, continuous process and

differentiated timetables; flexibility and cooperation.

“APEC Economic Leaders’ Declaration for Action,”

Osaka, Japan, Nov. 19, 1995.

207 APEC, “APEC Economic Leaders’

Declaration: From Vision to Action,” Subic,

Philippines, Nov. 25, 1996, p. 2.

208 APEC, “Joint Statement of the Eighth APEC

Ministerial Meeting,” APEC 96/MM, Nov. 22-23, 1996,

p. 6.

209 APEC, “APEC Economic Leaders’

Declaration: From Vision to Action,” Subic,

Philippines, Nov. 25, 1996, p. 2.

210 Ibid.

211 Substantive discussions regarding specific

content of an ITA were referred to members’ WTO

representatives in Geneva..

212 APEC, “APEC Economic Leaders’

Declaration: From Vision to Vision,” Subic,

Philippines, Nov. 25, 1996, p. 2.

213 The WTO Singapore Ministerial meeting and

the ITA are discussed in greater detail in Ch. 2.
86
87

CHAPTER 4 

U.S. Relations With Major

Trading Partners

This chapter reviews bilateral trade relations and

issues with seven major U.S. trading partners during

1996: Canada, the EU, Japan, Mexico, China, Taiwan,

and Korea. See tables A-1 to A-21 for detailed

information on U.S. trade with these partners.

Canada

Economic and trade relations between the United

States and Canada were relatively smooth during 1996.

The trading relationship is dominated by the NAFTA,

and while some trade disputes were confronted, no

single issue dominated the bilateral trade relationship.1

The March 1996 enactment by the United States of

additional trade sanctions against Cuba and countries

or investors that do business in Cuba, however, was a

particularly contentious issue in the overall bilateral

relationship for the remainder of the year.2 Another

dispute between the United States and Canada in 1996

centered on differing interpretation of obligations

related to agriculture under the NAFTA and the WTO.

That dispute, involving dairy and poultry products, was

resolved in Canada’s favor with the announcement of a

NAFTA dispute settlement panel determination late in

the year. Softwood lumber, a subject of recurring

bilateral attention, was again addressed in 1996. A

5-year agreement was concluded following discussions

between Federal and Provincial authorities and

representatives of the industry on both sides of the

border.

Dairy and Poultry Dispute

In the spring of 1994, the United States and Canada

disagreed over the priority of NAFTA bilateral

commitments versus Uruguay Round commitments on

agriculture.3 The dispute centered on the NAFTA

goals of eliminating tariffs on bilateral trade and the

conversion of nontariff barriers to tariffs

(“tariffication”) as part of Uruguay Round

implementation. Canada asserted that Uruguay Round

tariffication held precedence over NAFTA tariff

elimination. The United States said that certain

Canadian tariffs on imports of agricultural products

were “contrary to its commitments under the

NAFTA.”4 The case was the first dispute handled

under the dispute settlement procedures of NAFTA

Chapter 20.5

The dispute ended with release of the dispute

settlement panel’s report, which was officially

published by the NAFTA Secretariat in December

1996.6 The unanimous panel decision upheld the

Canadian position. As a result, Canadian duties on

certain products will not be eliminated by January 1,

1998, as they would have been under the original

NAFTA timetable. The case was significant in that it

had possible implications for further decisions in

NAFTA. The following two sections summarize the

Uruguay Round and NAFTA provisions which were at

issue in the dispute.

Uruguay Round Provisions on

Agriculture

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture

included a commitment to expand market access for

agricultural products, cut agricultural export subsidies,

and reduce trade-distorting support to domestic

agricultural producers. In the Uruguay Round, the

United States agreed to scale back its own

export-subsidy program, including the Export

Enhancement Program. The United States also agreed

to tariffication of quotas imposed under section 22 of

the Agricultural Adjustment Act and then to reduce

those tariffs. Canada and other countries with official

supply management systems for agricultural products

agreed to replace those systems with tariffs and then

reduce the tariffs. The tariffication process affected

Canadian supply management systems for certain

agricultural products, including dairy products,

poultry, eggs, barley, and margarine.7 As a result of

the supply management system in Canada, Canadian

consumers pay some of the world’s highest prices for
88

milk, butter, and other products covered by the

decision.8

In January 1994, Canada announced new tariff

rates for certain agricultural products that would go

into effect on July 1, 1995, as a result of tariffication.

Even after the six-year reduction, such Canadian duties

would continue to be prohibitive, equaling 285.6

percent ad valorem for imported chicken cuts, 187.5

percent for eggs, and 272.5 percent for yogurt.9

Duty Elimination under

CFTA/NAFTA

The United States reacted to the 1994 Canadian

announcement of new tariffs by pointing out that,

under the terms of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade

Agreement (CFTA) and the NAFTA, all duties between

the two countries were to be eliminated by 1998.

Canada responded that the Uruguay Round

commitments agreement took precedence over both the

CFTA and the NAFTA.

The NAFTA agreement anticipated the possibility

of overlap with other agreements. Article 103 states

that “In the event of any inconsistency between this

Agreement and such other agreements, this Agreement

shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency, except

as otherwise provided in this Agreement.” Chapter 7

of the NAFTA, which treats agricultural measures,

states that ”domestic support reduction commitments

may result from agricultural multilateral negotiations

under the GATT” (Article 704). While the Article

acknowledges that a signatory may change its domestic

support measures at its discretion, it makes no specific

mention of the tariffication that may accompany

domestic support reduction commitments in the URA.

In July 1995, the United States and Canada held

bilateral consultations on the differences in

interpretation of the NAFTA duty elimination

requirements and the Uruguay Round tariffication

process. The two sides were not able to reach

agreement. The United States referred the dispute to

dispute settlement proceedings under the NAFTA.10

The United States, as the party invoking the dispute

settlement process, argued that the tariffs resulting

from Canada’s adherence to the WTO tariffication

commitment violated the previous NAFTA/CFTA

commitment to eliminate duties between the free trade

partners. The United States also argued that the tariffs

resulting from the tariffication process were higher

than those agreed to under the NAFTA, and thus the

Canadian action constituted a violation of the NAFTA

Article 302 prohibition on increasing duties. Canada,

on the other hand, maintained that it was required to

establish these new tariffs pursuant to the WTO

Agreement on Agriculture. Canada further argued that

its tarrification obligation, was consistent with its

commitments under the NAFTA.11

The panel concluded that the U.S. contention that

the imposition of Canadian tariffs on the goods in

question “on its face violates the straightforward

prohibition contained in the words of NAFTA Article

302.”12 Because the U.S. had established a prima

facie case, the panel next had to determine whether

Canada had shown either that its actions were

consistent with Article 302, or that they were allowed

under an exception to the article. The panel decided

that Article 710 of the CFTA brings into the NAFTA

by reference the replacement regime for nontariff

barriers that was ultimately established by the WTO

Agreement on Agriculture.13 As a result, the Canadian

duty increases were found to be “otherwise provided

for in the agreement” and therefore consistent with

NAFTA Article 302. In short, the panel ruled, that

Canada acted in conformance with both its NAFTA

obligations and its WTO commitments.14

Acting USTR Barshefsky and USDA Secretary

Glickman expressed “deep disappointment” at the

decision. They said that a more open trade regime

would benefit both U.S. producers and Canadian

consumers. They added that the effect of the NAFTA

panel decision would be to preclude U.S. sales of dairy

and poultry products in Canada, because the high

tariffs that were imposed as a result of the tariffication

effort were upheld.15

U.S.-Canadian Softwood

Lumber Agreement

 Bilateral consultations between the Governments

and industries of the United States and Canada

regarding Canadian softwood lumber exports to the

United States began in late 1994.16 On May 29, 1996,

the United States and Canada formally entered into a

5-year agreement intended to ensure that there is no

material injury or threat thereof to an industry in the

United States from imports of softwood lumber from

Canada. The agreement was formally known as the

Softwood Lumber Agreement Between the

Government of the United States of America and the

Government of Canada, originally announced on April

2, 1996,17 and the legal details were finalized over the

next 8 weeks.

The five-year agreement established annual

allocations and fees for the lumber exports of the

Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Quebec,

Alberta, and Ontario. The agreement stipulates that up
89

to 14.7 billion board feet of lumber may be exported

annually without additional fees; for quantities

between 14.7 billion and 15.35 billion board feet, a fee

of US$50 per 1,000 board feet would be assessed; and

a fee of US$100 per 1,000 board feet would be

assessed for exports in excess of 15.35 billion board

feet per year. The Government of Canada is

responsible for allocating export allowances to the four

provinces. On September 10, 1996, Canada decided to

base the allowances on historical trade levels.

Allocations were distributed as follows: British

Columbia, 59 percent; Quebec, 23 percent; Ontario

10.3 percent; Alberta 7.7 percent.18 Exports

originating in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the

Maritime provinces are not subject to the agreement.

Provincial allocations were then assigned to individual

firms based on historical exports patterns.

Prior to the official allocation of the lumber quota

in October by the Canadian Federal Government,

lumber shipments and prices were extremely volatile.

Because the bilateral pact set up quarterly limits on the

exportation of lumber, market response was tentative

during the period prior to the announcement of the

allocations.19 Falling prices and a slowdown in trade

reportedly occurred near the end of a quarter, when the

possibility of increased fees being levied on additional

shipments contributed to the uncertainty and confusion

in the market.20

Under the agreement, U.S. lumber companies,

unions, and trade associations pledged that they would

not seek recourse to the trade laws against U.S. imports

of softwood lumber from Canada for the duration of

the five-year agreement. Furthermore, Canada was

assured that the U.S. Department of Commerce would

not self-initiate any trade action during the life of the

agreement and would dismiss any petition from this

sector that was brought under the countervailing duty

or dumping law as long as the agreement is in effect

and not breached.21

In the interim period between signing and implementation of the agreement, prices for softwood

lumber experienced increased volatility. This

increased volatility and subsequent price increases22

caused much consternation in the United States

between end-users and retailers of lumber products and

led the National Association of Home Builders and the

National Lumber and Building Materials Dealers

Association to call for the Agreement to be

terminated.23 While acknowledging unusual volatility

in the lumber market, the Coalition for Fair Lumber

Imports24 suggested that the agreement is not the major

cause of price increases.25 When asked to terminate the

agreement at the behest of the National Association of

Home Builders, USTR declined either to terminate or

to modify the existing agreement.26 In 1996, U.S.

imports from Canada totaled 17.6 billion board feet, up

4.9 percent from 1995.

As 1996 drew to a close, the Coalition for Fair

Lumber Imports stated that the Agreement is an

interim solution to a long-running dispute. The

Coalition maintained that the final solution lies in

either reformation of Canadian timber sale procedures

or free trade27 of logs from all lands in the United

States and in Canada.28

Wool Suits

During 1996 a trade dispute developed over

increased U.S. imports of wool suits from Canada.

The volume of wool suit imports increased over the

period 1988-1995, causing the U.S. industry to mount a

campaign to overturn what they cited as an “unfair

advantage” and a “loophole” in the CFTA and NAFTA.

The trade flows were influenced by the duty

treatment on certain textiles and apparel under the

CFTA. The origin of inputs and processes completed

thereon are the key to determining eligibility for tariff

preferences (on goods not wholly obtained in one

country) under most trade agreements. The CFTA

employed a “fabric forward” rule of origin for certain

textiles and apparel. According to this rule, all

production, assembly, and manufacture from the

weaving of the fabric onward, must take place within

the region (Canada or the United States) for the end

product to qualify for reduced duties under the CFTA.

The fabric forward rule allowed foreign yarn to be

used in whatever garment or product was made, as

long as the fabric itself was made in either the United

States or Canada.

NAFTA employs a stricter “yarn forward” origin

rule for these goods—all components and inputs,

beginning with the yarn itself, must be made in the

region to be eligible for NAFTA tariff preferences.

Canada argued against the stricter rule and negotiated

an exception in the form of a large U.S. import quota

or tariff preference level (TPL) for wool products that

did not meet the stricter NAFTA origin rule. The TPL

applies to wool fabric apparel made from

non-orginating fabric or yarn. Under the TPL, Canada

could export wool apparel to the United States at

preferential rates although the woolen articles were

made from Canadian non-originating fabric or yarn.29

After the TPL went into effect, Canada replaced

Italy as the leading foreign source of men’s suits in the

United States. Imports of Canadian suits increased

from 100,000 units in 1988 to over 1 million in 1995,
90

allowing Canadian suits to increase market share from

5 percent to 24 percent.30 Garment makers in both

Canada and the United States buy wool fabric from

other countries. Canada’s tariff on imported woolen

fabric is 8 percent ad valorem, while the U.S. duty is

36 percent. Efforts in Congress to restrict the imports

of tailored wool products that are made with foreign

fabric failed in 1996.

European Union

The New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) was the

centerpiece of U.S.-EU trade relations in 1996. Urged

on by the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, a group of

U.S. and European business leaders, U.S. and EU

officials made progress on mutual recognition

agreements, customs cooperation, and the Information

Technology Agreement. However, throughout the

year, EU concerns over the U.S. Cuba sanctions

law—the so-called Helms-Burton Act—dampened the

relationship. In addition, bilateral disputes continued,

such as those on the EU hormone ban and the EU

banana import regime.

New Transatlantic Agenda

U.S. and EU leaders launched the NTA in

December 1995 to revitalize the transatlantic

partnership. The NTA sets out a framework for

cooperation in economic, political, and security areas

and was accompanied by a Joint Action Plan, which

identifies specific actions for the two governments to

take.31 In the economic sphere, the NTA aims to

strengthen the multilateral trading system and to

establish a transatlantic marketplace through trade

facilitation and the removal of trade barriers.

During 1996, officials from both sides of the

Atlantic worked to accomplish some of the

trade-related objectives of the NTA. Priorities

included reaching an International Technology

Agreement (ITA), Mutual Recognition Agreements

(MRAs), and a customs cooperation agreement. The

Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) played a key

role during 1996 in defining the NTA and achieving its

objectives.

The Transatlantic Business

Dialogue

The idea of a TABD was originally conceived in

late 1994 as a mechanism for involving business in the

policy decisions affecting transatlantic trade and

economic relations. The purpose of the TABD was to

achieve consensus among U.S. and European business

leaders on issues and specific actions for the

governments to take to facilitate bilateral trade and

investment.

The European Commission Vice-President, Sir

Leon Brittan and Commissioner Martin Bangemann

and the late U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown

launched the initiative at a conference in Seville in

November 1995. Over 100 U.S. and European CEOs

attended the meeting and produced a report containing

recommendations to reduce barriers to trade.

Government leaders incorporated some of the Seville

recommendations into the NTA and the Joint Action

Plan announced in December 1995. The

recommendations made by the TABD at the 1995

Seville conference fell into four broad categories:

standards, certification, and regulatory policies; trade

liberalization; investment; and third country issues. In

early 1996, 15 issue groups were established to address

the Seville recommendations. These groups issued

progress reports in May outlining proposals for future

action. Some of the highlights included:32

Construct a new transatlantic regulatory

model based on the principle “approved

once, accepted everywhere.”

Complete MRAs as soon as possible for

medical devices, telecommunications

terminal equipment, information technology products, electrical equipment, and

pharmaceuticals GMPs (good manufacturing practices). Begin negotiations for

MRAs in accountancy services and

chemicals.

Implement fully Uruguay Round results,

including tariff cuts, and conclude unfinished business.

Accelerate Uruguay Round tariff cuts.

Conclude an ITA before the end of 1996.

Eliminate remaining barriers in government procurement.

Improve intellectual property protection

both at the bilateral and multilateral level,

e.g., through complete implementation of

the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects

of Intellectual Property (TRIPs), and

accelerated TRIPs implementation in key

third countries.

Improve and harmonize customs practices

through a variety of technical measures.

Implement promptly the 1994 and 1996

OECD recommendations on international

business practices to combat bribery and
91

corruption, and support further OECD

work on the topic.

 Facilitate transatlantic partnerships and

trade between small businesses through a

special Small Business Initiative.

 Promote open investment regimes

bilaterally and multilaterally, e.g., through

conclusion of the OECD Multilateral

Agreement on Investment, and initiation of

discussions on the links between trade and

investment in the WTO.

 Develop proposals to reform the U.S.

product liability laws.

 Harmonize U.S. and EU competition

policies (e.g., on mergers and acquisitions)

and promote discussion of the relationship

between trade and competition policy at the

multilateral level.

One of the first results of the TABD process was a

conference held April 10-11 among auto industry

representatives. The purpose of the conference was to

harmonize the ways U.S. and EU officials regulate

auto safety and emissions and ultimately, global

harmonization of auto standards. Conference

participants recommended that the two governments

agree on mutual recognition and functional

equivalence of auto industry regulations, certification,

and standards, and that Working Party 29 of the United

Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)

1958 Geneva Agreement should be the primary forum

for global auto standards harmonization. The United

States is in the process of joining the working party.33

Later in the year, the TABD marked its first year of

operation with a conference held in Chicago on

November 8-9. These meetings were successful at

nudging forward progress on the ITA, MRAs, and

WTO basic telecommunications negotiations. One of

the conference’s major breakthroughs came when U.S.

and EU officials agreed in principle on an MRA for

pharmaceutical GMPs, which had been stalemated for

a year (see below).

After two days of intense talks between business

and government leaders, the TABD issued the so-called

Chicago Declaration. Conference participants praised

the successful conclusion of a customs agreement,

which had been initialed the day before the conference

began, and the launching of the Small Business

Initiative to facilitate transatlantic small business

partnerships. In addition to welcoming the progress

to date, the document lists a variety of proposals for

future action, building on the recommendations issued

in May. Highlights of the recommendations include:34

 Continue to work jointly towards a new

transatlantic regulatory model based on the

principle “approved once, and accepted

everywhere”;

 Support the elimination of tariffs on

(remaining) pharmaceuticals, camera

parts, medical devices and diagnostics, and

distilled spirits;

 Increase market access through accelerated

implementation of Uruguay Round tariff

commitments in agreed upon sectors,

reduction of peak tariffs, extension of tariff

bindings, elimination of nontariff barriers,

etc.;

 Call upon U.S. and EU officials to organize

a conference within 6 months to report on

progress made with respect to TABD

recommendations on intellectual property

rights issues;

 Expand the membership of the WTO

Government Procurement Agreement and

improve its disciplines; and

 Urge the withdrawal of the extraterritorial

provisions of the U.S. sanctions laws

enacted in 1996, but support the objectives

of promoting democracy and combating

terrorism.

Thirteen sectoral groups made specific

recommendations or established work programs to

address standards-related trade barriers. For example,

the forest products group urged the EU to open up the

review process of the EU ecolabeling regime and to

cooperate with the United States at the WTO to

establish disciplines covering ecolabels.

Both business and government officials have

praised the results of the partnership so far. U.S. and

EU leaders, meeting at their semi-annual summit on

December 16, pledged to support the TABD’s

involvement in the transatlantic relationship at the

highest levels during 1997.35

Mutual Recognition Agreements

One of the foremost goals of the NTA is the

conclusion of bilateral agreements for mutual

recognition of conformity assessment procedures. The

purpose of a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) is

to permit a product tested and certified as meeting

required technical regulations or standards in one

country to be sold without further approval in the other

country. Seven sectors were under negotiation during

1996: telecommunications terminal equipment and

information technology equipment, electrical products,
92

electromagnetic compatibility,36 recreational craft,

veterinary biologics, pharmaceutical good

manufacturing practices (GMPs), and medical devices.

Together, these sectors represent about $40 billion in

two-way trade.37 The U.S. Department of Commerce

estimates that U.S. companies could save over $100

million annually if these MRAs are concluded.38

During the first half of the year, the United States

and EU made progress in 5 of the 7 sectors and on an

MRA umbrella text.39 Only progress on

pharmaceutical GMPs and medical devices remained

stalled. U.S. officials strongly urged the EU to permit

conclusion and implementation of those MRAs where

agreement appeared imminent. However, the EU

insisted throughout the year that agreement must be

reached in all seven sectors so that the MRAs could be

implemented at the same time as a comprehensive,

balanced package.40

Under industry pressure, U.S. and EU leaders

broke the deadlock on the pharmaceutical MRA at the

TABD conference in November. Officials agreed on

the major principles that will provide the basis for the

final MRA and should permit the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) to implement the MRA without

a change in U.S. law. In addition, officials agreed that

all MRAs under negotiation (with the possible

exception of veterinary biologics) would be concluded

by the end of January 1997, although progress on

medical devices remained stalled.41

One of the reasons negotiation of a pharmaceutical

GMP MRA has been difficult is that U.S. law dictates

that the FDA cannot delegate its authority to certify

GMPs.42 Thus, an MRA permitting the acceptance of

EU tests and approvals of pharmaceutical GMPs would

require a change in U.S. law. Under the recent

agreement, both sides will be permitted to conduct

reinspections “as necessary.” The special

circumstances under which a reinspection may take

place are supposed to be rare and will be defined

carefully in the final text of the MRA.43

The two sides also agreed that each government

will receive a copy of the inspection reports throughout

the life of the agreement, and that pre-approval

inspections will be covered. Finally, the agreement

calls for a 3-year “confidence-building period” to ease

full recognition into place. Joint inspections and other

cooperative activities are intended to take place during

this time period.44

Customs Cooperation

On November 7, 1996 U.S. and EU officials

initialed a draft agreement on customs cooperation and

mutual assistance in customs matters. The goals of this

agreement include:45

 To establish bilateral cooperation with a

view to simplifying customs procedures

and facilitating trade;

 To establish mutual assistance, i.e., a

mechanism of exchange of information

between the customs authorities, with a

view to fighting commercial fraud;

 To exchange customs authorities to

advance their understanding of each others

customs techniques, procedures, and

computerized systems;

 Coordination in international

organizations, such as the Customs

Cooperation Council; and

 Technical assistance to third countries on

customs matters.

 The agreement calls for the establishment of a

Joint Customs Cooperation Committee composed of

both U.S. and EU customs officials. The Committee is

to ensure that the agreement is implemented

appropriately and to discuss emerging customs issues

not covered by the pact.46

Meat Hormone Ban

Effective January 1, 1989, the EU banned imports

of meat from animals treated with growth-promoting

hormones. The ban was estimated to cost U.S. meat

exporters approximately $100 million worth of trade

annually. As a result, the United States imposed 100

percent ad valorem retaliatory duties on a variety of

agricultural imports from the EU.47 During 1995, two

bodies concluded that there was no scientific

justification for the ban.48 Despite these findings, the

EU continued to impose the ban. Consequently, in

January 1996, the United States initiated formal WTO

dispute-settlement procedures.

The U.S. Government has argued that there is no

scientific basis for the ban. A U.S. attempt to

challenge the ban under the GATT 1947 was blocked

by the EU. During 1995, both the United Nations

Codex Alimentarius and a special scientific conference

convened by the EU declared that the five

growth-promoting hormones banned in the EU posed

no health risk in meat production if used under

prescribed conditions. As a result, on January 26,

1996, the United States requested consultations with

the EU under article XXII of the GATT 1994.49

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand joined the

consultations.

Despite the WTO case, the EU reaffirmed its

commitment to the ban, citing consumer opposition
93

and the threat to meat consumption. A primary

concern among EU representatives was that demand

for beef would fall dramatically as it did after the BSE

(“mad cow” disease) scare.50 All member states,

except the United Kingdom, supported maintaining the

ban.51

Because of the lack of progress in bilateral

consultations, the United States requested a

dispute-settlement panel on May 8, but the EU blocked

the request. A second request resulted in the

establishment of a panel on May 20. In announcing the

action, Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky claimed the

hormone ban “has no legitimate basis” and “violates

the EU’s obligations under the WTO agreements.”52

In particular, the United States cited inconsistency with

GATT 1994, the Agreement on the Application of

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement

on Technical Barriers to Trade, and the Agreement on

Agriculture.53 Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and

Norway reserved their rights to intervene in the panel

proceedings as third parties.54

Meanwhile, the EU initiated WTO disputesettlement procedures on April 18 over U.S. measures

taken under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in

response to the EU hormone ban. The EU

Commission claimed that duty increases imposed

against Community products by the United States in

1989, as well as section 301 itself, were inconsistent

with WTO rules. In response, the United States

revoked the 100-percent duties on July 15, 1996.

Because the U.S. Government had agreed to use the

WTO panel process to examine the EU’s hormone ban

and it was now underway, U.S. officials said the

retaliatory tariffs were no longer needed.55

On September 27, Canada requested a WTO

dispute-settlement panel to examine the EU’s hormone

ban. The panel was established on October 16. Like

the U.S. case, Canada claims that the ban is not based

on scientific evidence and thus, is not consistent with

the EU’s WTO obligations.56

Bananas

After years of bilateral discussions, in 1996 the

United States, along with four Latin American nations,

requested a WTO dispute-settlement panel to examine

the EU’s system for the importation, sale, and

distribution of bananas. A similar panel found in

January 1994 that the EU banana regime was

inconsistent with the EU’s GATT obligations.

However, the panel’s report was never adopted.57

According to the United States, the EU banana

regime,58 which entered into force on July 1, 1993,

favors bananas from domestic producers and former

European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the

Pacific (ACP countries) over cheaper “dollar bananas”

from Latin America. The regime imposes duty and

quota restrictions on imports of non-ACP bananas (for

example, Central and South American) and limits the

amount of non-ACP bananas that can be marketed at

the in-quota duty rate by traditional operators (for

example, U.S. companies) through a highly complex

licensing system. In addition, four Latin American

countries signed a Framework Agreement with the EU

that increased and guaranteed the volume of their

export quotas and, according to U.S. officials,

permitted the Latin American signatories to implement

a banana export licensing scheme in a manner that

would further discriminate against U.S. banana

companies in favor of EU firms.59

The United States, Guatemala, Honduras, and

Mexico originally initiated WTO dispute-settlement

procedures to examine the EU’s banana regime on

September 28, 1995. However, Ecuador became a

WTO member in January 1996 and sought to join the

challenge. Rather than hold separate consultations,

which could lead to the establishment of separate

panels, the five countries decided to restart the

dispute-settlement process and request consultations

“jointly and severally.” On February 5, 1996, the

United States, along with Ecuador, Guatemala,

Honduras, and Mexico, requested consultations with

the EU under article XXIII of the GATT 1994. The

request alleges that the EU banana regime violates

GATT 1994, the Agreement on Importing Licensing

Procedures, the Agreement on Agriculture, the General

Agreement on Trade in Services, and the Agreement

on Trade-Related Investment Measures.60 Consultations were held on March 14-15, but failed to resolve

the dispute. Because the views of the EU member

states differ widely on the issue,61 they did not grant

the EU Commission a mandate to negotiate substantive

changes to the banana regime that could have satisfied

the complainants.62

On April 24, the United States, Ecuador,

Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico jointly requested a

dispute-settlement panel to examine the EU regime for

the importation, sale, and distribution of bananas. The

EU blocked this initial panel request, but at the next

meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on May 8, a

panel was established. The EU continues to claim that

it obtained a waiver from WTO obligations for the

Lomé Convention,63 which applies to its banana

commitments. However, the United States counters

that the waiver does not apply because the banana

regime goes well beyond what is required by Lomé.64

The United States has pointed out that the previous
94

panel report on the EU banana import regime issued in

1994 concluded, among other things, that the allocation

of its tariff quota licenses was inconsistent with the

GATT.65 The final panel report will probably be

issued in early May 1997.66

On a related but separate issue, on January 10,

1996, USTR announced the results of two section 301

investigations that had been initiated to examine the

banana regimes of Costa Rica and Colombia, the only

two Latin American Framework Agreement signatories

actually to implement the agreement. Although their

banana policies were determined to be unfair, no

sanctions were invoked because the U.S. Government

reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with

each country. USTR noted that Costa Rica and

Colombia had not fully addressed all of the problems

facing U.S. companies that ship bananas from these

countries, but had demonstrated a willingness to work

constructively with the United States by signing the

MOUs. Among other things, the MOUs committed the

two countries to take specific steps to pressure the EU

to reform its banana policy; in particular, to expand

access to the EU market for Latin American bananas,

to develop a market-oriented banana regime, and to

end the discrimination in the export certificate system,

which is only imposed on imports from Framework

signatories. The MOUs also established a consultative

mechanism to discuss banana issues. Although the

determination and action terminated the section 301

investigations, USTR is monitoring implementation of

the MOU commitments and continues to press these

countries to withdraw from the Framework Agreement.

In the event of noncompliance with the MOU or if

satisfactory progress is not made toward removing the

discriminatory elements of the Framework Agreement,

USTR may take further action.67

In 1996, Caribbean leaders continued to condemn

U.S. efforts to change the EU banana regime. They

expressed concern about losing their preferential

access to the EU market, which would significantly

hurt their banana industries, the mainstay of many of

their economies.68 U.S. officials have insisted that

they support EU tariff preferences and financial

assistance to ACP countries under the Lomé

Convention for bananas, and that the EU can adopt a

market-oriented and less discriminatory banana regime

without undermining the Caribbean economies.69

However, Caribbean leaders continue to be concerned

that any disruption to their banana exports could affect

the political and economic stability of their nations.70

Other Issues

Throughout the year, the EU criticized the U.S.

Cuba sanctions law—the so-called Libertad or

Helms-Burton Act.71 The EU protested the

extraterritorial effects of the U.S. law.72 As a result,

the EU threatened to retaliate should any European

companies be adversely affected by the act.73 In

addition, the EU requested a WTO dispute-settlement

panel to examine the act, and a panel was established

on November 20. However, in April 1997 the EU and

the United States reached a settlement under which the

EU suspended the WTO panel while both sides work to

develop binding disciplines on dealings in property

confiscated in Cuba.74

In addition to the EU hormone ban and the EU

banana import regime, an array of agricultural disputes

remained on the bilateral agenda. By the end of the

year, the EU had still failed to implement its Uruguay

Round market-access concessions on grains as well as

a tariff-rate quota for U.S. rice, which was part of an

earlier agreement to provide compensation to the

United States for EU enlargement.75 In addition,

negotiations to reach a veterinary equivalence

agreement failed to meet the yearend deadline. New

harmonized EU import requirements were supposed to

enter into effect on January 1, 1997, which could

disrupt U.S. exports of livestock and livestock

products. However, member states were permitted to

roll over existing sanitary measures until April 1, 1997,

providing more time to conclude an agreement.76

Also during 1996, U.S. officials complained about

the EU’s unpredictable procedures for approving

agricultural products developed with biotechnology.

Of particular concern towards the end of the year was

the slow pace of EU approval of genetically altered

corn from the United States. However, on December

18, the EU Commission authorized its sale after three

scientific committees reported their findings.77 Draft

legislation, which contains labeling requirements but

should facilitate the approval process, is expected to be

implemented in early 1997.78

The ITA, which gained multilateral approval at the

WTO Ministerial in December, was the subject of

extensive bilateral negotiations throughout the year.

The concept of an ITA originally grew out of a

proposal from the TABD. The goal of U.S. and EU

officials was to craft an agreement among Quad

members (Canada and Japan, as well as the United

States and EU) that could be expanded multilaterally.

The EU stalled progress throughout the summer,
95

attempting to link progress on the ITA with their

participation in the U.S.-Japan Semiconductor

Arrangement and progress on MRAs. Although the

United States concluded the semiconductor

arrangement with Japan without EU participation,

Quad ministers broke the deadlock in a meeting

September 27-28, and intensive negotiations on

product coverage ensued.79

Japan

During 1996, the primary focus of U.S. trade

relations with Japan was review and monitoring of

existing agreements to ensure implementation. At

yearend 1996, there were 45 major bilateral

agreements, including three new agreements covering

civil aviation, semiconductors, and insurance.

However, U.S. industry, represented by the American

Chamber of Commerce in Tokyo, remained concerned

about implementation of a majority of the agreements,

according to the first comprehensive analysis ever

conducted of all bilateral agreements. One contentious

issue in 1996 was U.S. access to Japan’s market for

consumer film and photographic paper. This issue was

particularly noteworthy with regard to the breadth of

regulations and business practices at issue and to

signifying at least a short-term trend toward moving

bilateral disputes into multilateral fora. At yearend,

this issue was unresolved and a dispute settlement case

was pending before the WTO. The United States and

Japan continued to focus on both structural and

sectoral issues under the Framework Agreement talks

that began in 1993, with particular emphasis on

deregulation and increasing the level of foreign direct

investment in Japan. Meanwhile, the United States

trade deficit with Japan continued to decline for the

third year in a row, to $51 billion.

Semiconductors

During the first six months of 1996, the United

States and Japan issued statements regarding what type

of agreement, if any, would replace the 1991

U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Arrangement which was

scheduled to expire on July 31, 1996.80 Early in the

year, Japan announced that it was unwilling to discuss

renewing the 1991 agreement, stating that the foreign

share of Japan’s semiconductor market had increased

and that its semiconductor market was already

deregulated.81 From the U.S. perspective, the primary

reason for the increase was a side letter to the original

1986 agreement containing an expectation that the

foreign share of Japan’s market would exceed 20

percent by the end of 1992.82 In fact, the foreign

market share in Japan increased from 14.3 percent in

1991 to 30.6 percent during the first quarter of 1996.83

Japan declined to enter into government-togovernment negotiations with the United States, saying

that any new initiative on semiconductors should be

led by the private sector. The United States, however,

maintained that government-level involvement was

necessary to ensure that there would not be backsliding

or a decline in foreign market share.

On June 11, 1996, Japan’s Ministry of International

Trade and Industry (MITI) agreed to enter into

negotiations with the United States, but noted that it

continued to oppose monitoring of the foreign market

share of semiconductors in Japan. However, MITI

conceded that it was not likely that industry-to-industry

talks would succeed without government

involvement.84 Working level meetings were held

during June 17-18, 1996 but the two sides remained

divided about the need for government involvement in

market share surveys. Two days later the talks

continued between MITI Vice Minister Yoshihiro

Sakamoto and Ira Shapiro, Senior Counsel, USTR, and

subsequently between Ambassador Walter Mondale

and MITI Minister Shumpei Tsukahara, but reportedly

little progress was made. Finally, on July 7, at the G-7

meeting in Lyon, France, President Clinton and Prime

Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto agreed that the

semiconductor issue would be settled no later than the

July 31 expiration date of the agreement.

On August 2, 1996, in Vancouver, Canada, the

United States and Japan reached a governmentto-government agreement that provided a framework

for “ongoing monitoring and bilateral consultations

with Japan [regarding semiconductors] to help ensure

that the market remains open and functioning on

principles with free and fair trade.”85 The two

governments agreed that cooperation should be carried

out on the basis of three principles: importance of

market principles, consistency with WTO rules, and

international cooperation.86 An agreement between the

two major U.S. and Japanese semiconductor industry

associations was also reached. According to the Joint

Statement by the Government of Japan and the

Government of the United States Concerning

Semiconductors: “the industries will collect data on

semiconductor markets, provide the governments with

reports on trade flows, market developments, and

cooperative activities and will make recommendations

on issues of concern.”87 Specifically, the quarterly

“market/trade flow reports” were to be based on

import/export statistics, industry surveys such as those

prepared by World Semiconductor Trade Statistics

(WSTS) and Dataquest, government data, and other
96

available data. The reports were also to include

information on design-ins, joint ventures, and

long-term relationships.88 While the industries were to

seek to prepare joint reports, they reserved the right

under the agreement to distribute separate reports.89

The agreement established a consultative mechanism

whereby the two governments would meet at least once

a year to:

 Receive and review reports on data

collected and analyzed and recommendations made under the Agreement or by

the Council members, and to meet with

them to discuss these matters;

 Review and discuss the cooperative

activities conducted under the Agreement

and market trends and developments,

including those related to competitiveness

and foreign participation, in major

markets, taking into account the

information provided in the industry

reports; and

 Discuss government policies and activities

affecting the semiconductor industries

taking into account industry recommendations.90

A major point of the joint statement is a reference

to a separate document, “Agreement Between EIAJ

(Electronic Industry Association of Japan) and SIA

(Semiconductor Industry Association) on International

Cooperation Regarding Semiconductors,” which

establishes a Semiconductor Council to “enhance

mutual understanding, to address market access

matters, to promote industry activities and to expand

international cooperation in the semiconductor sector.”

In addition, a key statement adds that: “The activities

of the council should be based on respect for market

principles . . . . Markets should be open and

competitive, without discrimination based on capital

affiliation, and with purchasing decisions based on

quality, cost, delivery and service.”91

The United States had originally noted that it was

necessary to take the capital affiliation of firms into

account in order to accurately analyze import and

export trends. Previously, shipments to Japanese firms

from manufacturing facilities in Asia were counted as

foreign imports. Although the agreement did not

contain references to monitoring specific market share

targets or to capital affiliation of firms, these factors

were to be taken into account as part of the overall

monitoring process. The monitoring would serve as an

“early warning” system regarding market developments in Japan, according to U.S. industry

representatives. The three types of semiconductors

singled out for cooperation in the industry agreement

were for automotive, telecommunications, and

emerging applications. Cooperative activities will

include: standardization; environment; worker health

and safety; intellectual property rights; trade and

investment liberalization; and market development.

On September 28, 1996, the two countries agreed that

the first meeting of the Semiconductor Council would

not take place before March 1997 and that the first

government consultations would be held after that

meeting.92

 Early in the negotiations, MITI proposed the

creation of an industry-level Worldwide

Semiconductor Council and the Global Government

Forum.93 After initial opposition by the United States,

the Global Government Forum (GGF) was established

to discuss various issues affecting the semiconductor

industry including:

 Trade and investment liberalization, including removal of tariffs and other market

barriers;

 Legal regimes that affect the semiconductor industry, such as regulation and

taxation;

 Environment, worker health and safety,

and standardization;

 Protection of intellectual property rights;

 Present and future approaches to basic

scientific research; and

 Promotion of the information society,

including market development.

The first GGF was to be held no later than January 1,

1997.94 In addition to the United States and Japan,

other semiconductor producing countries were to be

allowed to participate in the annual GGF discussions,

without any preconditions.95

Autos and Parts

During 1996, the United States continued to

monitor progress under the 1995 U.S.-Japan

Automotive agreement.96 The agreement was intended

to address some of the difficulties experienced by U.S.

firms in accessing Japan’s vehicle distribution system,

eliminating regulations on the automobile parts

aftermarket in Japan, and improving opportunities for

U.S. original equipment (OE) parts suppliers in Japan,

and with Japanese transplants in the United States.

The agreement included 17 objective criteria to

evaluate progress in these three areas.97 An

Interagency Enforcement Team was established to

ensure compliance with the agreement.98 Under the
97

1995 agreement, Japan agreed to support increased

access to Japanese dealers. The goal of U.S.

manufacturers was to establish 200 dealerships in

Japan by the end of 1996, and 1,000 new dealerships

by 2000.99 In addition, Japan agreed to: provide

government support and financial incentives to

encourage imports of autos and parts to Japan,

deregulate the aftermarket for auto parts, purchase

more OE parts from non-keiretsu suppliers for use in

their transplants in the United States and for use in

Japan, address many performance and technical

standards that affect Japanese imports of autos, and

provide vehicle registration data for use in market

research on a more equal basis to foreign and Japanese

manufacturers.100

On October 21, 1996, the Interagency Enforcement

Team issued a report evaluating progress under the

agreement.101 The report also summarized the

conclusions of the first bilateral consultations on

implementation of the agreement which were held

during September 18 and 19 in San Francisco.

According to the October report, overall progress had

been made towards achieving the main goals of the

agreement in the three areas mentioned above. During

the first six months of 1996, U.S. exports of motor

vehicles to Japan increased by 25 percent to $1.4

billion compared to January-June 1995. U.S. exports

of automotive parts to Japan totaled $901 million, an

11-percent increase compared to the first six months of

1995.102 Regarding the establishment of new

dealerships, as of November 1996, 117 new sales

outlets had been established in Japan by U.S.

automobile manufacturers.103 Despite this progress,

the goal set by U.S. manufacturers of 200 dealerships

was not met. Industry representatives and the U.S.

government urged Japan to accelerate recruitment of

new dealers.104 In another area affecting automobile

sales in Japan, the United States and Japan reached a

mutually satisfactory conclusion on 23 outstanding

standards and certification issues. One of the most

important results in this area was an agreement by

Japan to certify U.S. automotive laboratories to

undertake tests needed for type designation approval

for new model vehicles intended to be sold in Japan.105

Following the agreement, the Government of Japan

began to enact required deregulation of the automobile

parts aftermarket, including the elimination of eight

parts from its “critical parts” list.106 Two of these

parts, shock absorbers and struts, offer the most

market opportunities for U.S. firms based on sales

figures since the agreement was signed. The United

States expressed disappointment during its bilateral

meeting in September that the Ministry of Transport

had decided not to deregulate other frequently repaired

items, such as brakes and transmissions.107 The

Government of Japan had also begun to relax the

requirements for government approved repair shops.

As a result, the number of certified and designated

repair garages increased.108 During previous

negotiations, the United States had noted the

importance of increasing the number of independent

garages which tend to use more non-OE parts than do

the dealer-affiliated garages. Since the agreement was

signed, there had been greater efforts by Japanese

vehicle manufacturers in Japan and the United States to

increase supplier opportunities through design-in (the

design and engineering phase of new components) and

consumer outreach programs. At yearend, the United

States continued to urge Japanese auto producers and

transplants to use more U.S. produced parts and to

procure parts without discrimination based on capital

affiliation.109

Insurance

Japan is the world’s second largest insurance

market, with premiums valued at $341 billion.110 The

primary sectors of the insurance market, life and

non-life, account for approximately 95 percent of

Japan’s market. The so-called third sector, which

includes insurance against cancer, personal accident

insurance and hospitalization, accounts for 5 percent of

the market.111 The total foreign market share is

approximately 3.3 percent, compared to market shares

of 10 to 33 percent in other industrialized countries.

The foreign market share consists of 1.l7 percent of

primary life, 0.49 percent of primary non-life and 1.70

percent of the third sector.112 There are sectoral and

structural barriers to trade in Japan’s insurance market

including nontransparent regulations and use of

administrative guidance, a highly concentrated industry

structure, private procurement practices and

cross-shareholding arrangements associated with

keiretsu and various barriers to distribution.113

During numerous rounds of bilateral negotiations

since February 1996, the United States focused on

implementation of the 1994 bilateral agreement,

particularly regarding deregulation of the primary

sector of the insurance market.114 U. S. officials

indicated that primary sector deregulation must

include: direct auto policies including the ability for

insurers to differentiate auto products on the basis of

risk factors;115 the adjustment of the commercial fire

threshold to allow insurers to offer more rate

differentiation; the institution of a notification system

for certain insurance products; and deregulation of the

rating bureaus which currently set compulsory

insurance rates. Under the 1994 agreement, Japan
98

committed to enhance regulatory transparency,

strengthen antitrust enforcement, and undertake

liberalization measures. A key part of the agreement

stated that “the MOF [Ministry of Finance] intends not

to allow such liberalization [of life and non-life

insurance companies into the third sector] as long as a

substantial portion of the life and non-life areas is not

deregulated. . . . Furthermore with respect to new or

expanded introduction of products in the third sector, it

is appropriate to avoid any radical change in the

business environment.”116 This linkage between first

implementing deregulation of the primary sectors

before allowing expanded entry into the third sector by

Japanese insurance subsidiaries was a main focus of

bilateral discussions during 1996.117

The Japanese claimed that there was already

substantial deregulation of the primary market and that

the introduction of subsidiaries into the third sector

was not a “radical change.” 118 Under a revision to

Japan’s Insurance Business Law, which was enacted

on April 1, Japanese insurance firms were to be

allowed to sell third-sector products through

subsidiaries, beginning on October 1, 1996. Early in

the year and throughout the summer, Ambassador

Mondale and other U.S. officials expressed concerns

about these plans and warned that entry of Japanese

subsidiaries into the third sector would be considered a

violation of the 1994 agreement.119 However, Japan

claimed that the agreement applied only to parent

companies and not the subsidiaries of Japanese

insurance firms. Therefore, despite U.S. criticism, in

August, Japan’s Ministry of Finance began issuing new

licenses to allow Japanese firms to enter the third

sector.

At the beginning of the year, U.S. negotiators were

hopeful that a settlement could be reached by an April

16 summit meeting of President Clinton and Prime

Minister Hashimoto. However, following unsuccessful

talks in February, and in March and the failure to

reach agreement just a week before the summit, it

became apparent that the issue would remain

outstanding.120 During the talks, Japan reportedly had

offered to allow mail-order sales of automobile

insurance and liberalize premium rates for accident

insurance in exchange for allowing Japanese

subsidiaries to handle third-sector products. On April

1, when the revised Insurance Business Law was

scheduled to go into effect, the Ministry of Finance

deferred revising rules that would have allowed the

new subsidiaries to expand into the third sector.121 On

April 13, just days before the summit, U.S. and

Japanese negotiators broke off their talks, agreed that

the issue would not be raised by the leaders, and set

June 1 as a new deadline for reaching an agreement.

However, talks at the end of May also failed to achieve

an understanding and the two sides gave up plans to

meet the deadline. Bilateral talks held during the last

week of July also were unsuccessful. The two sides

did not set a date for resuming negotiations. On August

5, Prime Minister Hashimoto sent a letter to President

Clinton urging him to find a solution to the insurance

dispute by arriving at a “political decision.”122

On September 30, 1996, following two days of

negotiations between Acting USTR Charlene

Barshefsky and Japan’s Minister of Finance, the two

countries reached an interim agreement. However,

under the interim agreement, the newly established

subsidiaries were not allowed to sell products in the

third sector until the end of the year, “pending an

overall negotiated solution addressing primary sector

deregulation as well as temporary limitations in the

third sector.”123 Japan agreed to allow the sale and

distribution of automobile insurance via direct mail.

Japan also agreed to include additional flexibility in

fire insurance rates for policies covering large

companies, and additional flexibility in rate and terms

of coverage for certain lines of liability insurance.124

Immediately following the agreement, Ministry of

Finance officials announced that insurance subsidiaries

would indeed be allowed to move into the third sector

as of January 1, 1997 even if a comprehensive

agreement were not reached. One day after reaching

the interim agreement, the United States also

announced that it was citing Japan’s market access for

insurance as a bilateral priority that could warrant

identification as a priority country practice in the

future. In announcing this decision, USTR noted that

the core of the dispute regarding implementation of the

1994 agreement centered on the linkage between

deregulation of the primary markets and entry of

Japanese firms into the third sector. USTR noted that

despite some initial primary sector deregulation under

the interim agreement, “significantly more primary

sector deregulation” would be needed to resolve the

issue.125 The two countries set a deadline of

December 15 for resolving the dispute.

The United States and Japan held additional talks

during November 15-16 in San Francisco, during

November 25-26 in Tokyo, during December 6-7 in

Tokyo and finally during December 14-15 in Tokyo.

Negotiators attempted to reach agreement on

deregulation of Japan’s mainstream property and

casualty business that would allow companies to set

their own rates for commercial fire insurance policies

and 10 new products, including computers. The

United States urged Japan to allow insurance

companies to scale premium rates for automobile

insurance based on the vehicle owner’s risk factors.
99

Currently, the premiums must be set at no more than 10

percent of the price established by the relevant ratings

bureau.126 Japan argued that deregulation of

automobile insurance would result in social

inequalities because younger and elderly insurees

would be charged higher premiums.127

During bilateral talks held December 6-7, Japan

put forth another proposal that included deregulation of

the primary sector in conjunction with Prime Minister

Hashimoto’s so-called “Big Bang” proposal to

deregulate the financial services and insurance market

by 2001. The proposal reportedly allowed insurers to

set their own premium rates, including determining

automobile insurance rates based on risk factors.128

On December 15, the Acting USTR Charlene

Barshefsky and Japan’s Minister of Finance announced

an agreement that would open Japan’s primary

insurance sector to “significant competition” and allow

“very limited entry” into the third sector. Under the

agreement, Japan also committed to approving the

introduction of auto insurance with variable premium

rates (beginning September 1997), to remove the

authority of the “rating organizations” to set insurance

rates, to deregulate the commercial fire insurance

market (within two years), and to streamline the

introduction of new insurance products. U.S firms will

be able to compete in 15 new areas of Japan’s

insurance market, including general liability insurance.

Consistent with the United States’ original position,

substantial deregulation of the third sector continues to

be linked to deregulation of the primary sector.129

Film

In early 1996, the United States continued to seek

consultations with the government of Japan regarding

access to Japan’s market for photographic film and

photographic paper. Japan had refused to negotiate

with the United States (except for preliminary

consultations) since May 1995 when Eastman Kodak

filed a petition pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade

Act of 1974.130 Kodak’s petition claimed that the

Government of Japan had instituted and maintained a

system of “liberalization countermeasures” that affect

the sale and distribution of foreign film and

photographic paper in Japan.131 Exclusive distribution

relationships and anticompetitive practices by firms

and trade associations contributed to a restrictive

market structure, according to the petition.132 As a

result of these barriers, Kodak claimed that it had

foregone $5.6 billion in sales since the mid-1970s and

had gained only 10 percent of Japan’s consumer photo

market. Japan attributed Kodak’s relatively low

market share to insufficient sales efforts and lack of

innovation. On July 2, 1995, in response to Kodak’s

petition, USTR initiated a section 301 investigation of

market barriers in Japan for consumer photographic

film and paper.133

In refusing to enter into negotiations with USTR,

MITI argued that this was a private sector complaint

that should be brought to the Japan Fair Trade

Commission, which is responsible for competition

policy issues and enforcement of the Antimonopoly

Law.134 Kodak’s Chief Executive Officer George

Fisher disagreed saying, “we do not feel that the Japan

Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) is the proper

investigative forum. The JFTC has been part of the

problem.”135 On February 21, 1996, one day before

President Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto were

scheduled to meet, the Japan Fair Trade Commission

announced that it would conduct an economic survey

of the film sector beginning in April 1996 to be

completed by March 1997.136 Kodak welcomed the

survey but indicated that it hoped that the survey would

not be used as an excuse to delay negotiations by the

governments of Japan and the United States. The

company noted that the JFTC had surveyed the film

market in 1992, but had not taken corrective actions

despite having found violations of the antimonopoly

law at that time.137

During the first half of 1996, the United States

considered taking the issue to the WTO. Kodak had

been reluctant to do so because competition policy

issues have not historically been addressed by that

body.138 Japan itself favored moving the dispute to a

multilateral fora, either the WTO or the OECD. On

June 13, 1996, the USTR announced its determination

under section 301 that the Japanese photographic

market had been found to be closed, but USTR added

that it was not imposing sanctions at that time. Instead,

Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky said the United

States was making three separate requests for

consultations under the WTO regarding:

 Violations of GATT Articles III and X

regarding nullification and impairment of

GATT benefits arising from the full

panoply of liberalization countermeasures

that the Government of Japan has put in

place and maintained thwarts imports in

this sector;

 Violations of GATS Articles III and XVI

arising from the requirements and

operation of the Large Scale Retail Store

Law which constitute a serious barrier to
100

foreign service suppliers as well as imports

of film and other consumer products; and

 Consultations on restrictive business

practices under a 1960 GATT decision.”139

The first request was for consultations on

consumer photographic film and paper, centering on

nullification and impairment of GATT obligations and

other violations. The second request for consultations

was on a broad range of services involving the

distribution system, the Large Scale Retail Store Law

and other laws. This case did not specifically relate to

photographic film and paper. The third request was for

consultations under a 1960 mechanism adopted by the

GATT Parties.140

 In announcing the action, Acting USTR Charlene

Barshefsky noted that “. . . the Government of Japan

built, supported and tolerated a market structure that

thwarts foreign competition, in which exclusionary

business practices are commonplace.”141 USTR cited

three ways in which the Government of Japan restricts

market access: closed distribution channels, limits on

retail outlets, and limits on incentives such as the

Premiums Law.142 In announcing its decision, USTR

said the United States will consider, at the appropriate

time, what further action—if any—needs to be

taken.143 The USTR also requested that Kodak

provide information on the dispute to the JFTC.144

Following the announcement, analysts indicated that

this would be the first major test of the WTO’s ability

to address non-traditional barriers and

government/private-sector issues.145 Some observers

also noted that the broad nature of the requests would

allow the United States to compile information and to

test various arguments about whether the case was

WTO consistent.146 Under the WTO procedures,

consultations are required for 60 days before a party

may request a dispute settlement panel.

 On June 24, 1996, Japan notified the United States

that it had decided to enter into talks under the

framework of the WTO. Consultations held between

the United States and Japan during July 10-11 in

Geneva, with regard to the first request, failed to

resolve the dispute.147 In a letter from Ambassador

Booth Gardner, the U.S. representative to the WTO, to

Japan’s Ambassador Minoru Endo, the United States

indicated that it had evidence of a variety of

anticompetitive practices including both horizontal

(price fixing, market allocations, group boycotts) and

vertical (resale price maintenance and exclusive

dealings) measures that “restrict the independent

choice of distributors and retailers.” 148 On August 7,

the Eastman Kodak filed a complaint with the JFTC

alleging violations of the Antimonopoly Law in the

consumer film and photographic paper market. The

U.S. requested that the JFTC investigate and take

necessary remedial actions.149 Under the

Antimonopoly Law, there is no deadline for the JFTC

to respond to the complaint.

On August 12, Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky

announced that the United States would request the

WTO to establish two dispute settlement panels. The

United States sought a review of its complaints under

the GATT regarding: (1) Japanese government barriers

to market access in Japan for foreign photographic film

and paper products and (2) under the GATS regarding

Japan’s Large Scale Retail Store Law. USTR also

indicated that it intended to accept the EU’s July 5

proposal to join consultations regarding restrictive

business practices, although Japan had imposed

preconditions on beginning such consultations.150

MITI officials reportedly called the U.S. decision to

request dispute settlement panels, “regrettable.”151

On September 20, 1996, Acting USTR Barshefsky

announced that the United States had formally

requested a dispute panel to determine whether

Japanese “systemic structural” barriers violate Japan’s

obligations under the GATT with regard to national

treatment and transparency. This first panel request

related to measures affecting consumer photographic

film and paper. The USTR also announced that it

would expand the scope of its GATS consultation

request to include measures other than the Large Scale

Retail Store Law that affect the competitiveness of

Kodak in Japan’s market. USTR Barshefsky indicated

that the United States would also formally request a

GATS dispute panel if consultations failed to resolve

those issues.152

On October 3, Japan blocked the U.S. request to

establish a dispute panel regarding photographic film

and paper. Japan said that the United States did not

identify which measures were in violation of the WTO

and that the complaint involved private business

practices, not government actions.153 On October 16,

the Dispute Settlement Body met and, in accordance

with dispute settlement rules, automatically established

a dispute settlement panel to consider the U.S.

complaint.154 The members of the panel were named

on December 17, 1996, and the panel met for the first

time on January 9, 1997 to establish a sechedule. On

February 20, 1997, the United States submitted a

200-page brief to the dispute panel. The submission

documents the U.S. position on Japan’s laws,

regulations, and administrative actions that affect the

photographic film and paper market in Japan.155

With regard to the second U.S. request for

consultations regarding violations of the GATS, the
101

60-day consultation period expired on November 19,

1996. During the week of December 9, 1996, Japan

responded to the U.S. request for additional

information.156 However, by yearend, the United

States had not formally requested the establishment of

a dispute panel.

With regard to the U.S. request for consultations on

restrictive business practices, Japan agreed to hold

consultations with the United States, but only on the

condition that parallel consultations on anticompetitive

practices in the United States be held as well.157 The

United States responded by saying that concurrent talks

would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the

GATT. At yearend the request for consultations on

restrictive business practices remained stalled.

 Paper

During 1996, the United States continued to

monitor implementation of a 1992 bilateral agreement

on paper products. Under the agreement, Japan

committed to strengthen enforcement of the

Antimonopoly Law, to encourage the use of

competitive foreign paper products by Japanese firms,

and to encourage Japanese consumers to purchase

paper products in four end-use sectors:

pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, publishing, and food

processing and packaging.158

In conjunction with fulfilling commitments under

the 1992 agreement, U.S. officials met with industry

representatives twice monthly in 1996 to encourage

them to increase their sales efforts and to understand

the Japanese business environment. U.S. firms

reported that they had improved their products in

terms of pricing and quality in order to meet Japanese

user requirements. Since the agreement was signed,

U.S. firms have developed some relationships with

Japanese firms. However, they have not been

successful in forming long-term relationships with

end-users primarily because these firms are reluctant to

switch away from their traditional Japanese suppliers

to foreign firms. In addition, U.S. firms continue to

experience difficulties in selling directly to first tier

distributors or second tier wholesalers in Japan.159

Many of these issues were raised during bilateral

discussions between the Japanese and U.S. industry

associations on April 10, 1996.160

On October 1, 1996, USTR cited Japan’s market

access for paper as a bilateral priority that could

warrant identification as a priority foreign country

practice in the future. In its announcement, USTR

noted that Japan’s market is restricted by a variety of

systemic impediments including: 1) exclusionary

business practices; 2) complex and essentially closed

paper distribution system; 3) interlocking relationships

between Japanese producers, distributors, merchants,

converters and corporate end-users; 4)

non-transparency in corporate purchasing practices;

and 5) inadequate enforcement of the Japanese

Antimonopoly Act .”161

Supercomputers

U.S. access to Japan’s market for supercomputers

has improved since 1993, when a special review of

Japan’s compliance with the arrangement was initiated

under section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974. The

review was subsequently extended during the next

three years and again on April 30, 1996.162 During

the February 1996 review of the U.S.-Japan

Supercomputer Arrangement, the United States raised

concerns regarding implementation of the agreement.

The United States was concerned about the use of

benchmark testing that favors Japanese vendors,

problems with bid specifications and delivery

deadlines, and the discounting of supercomputer prices

by Japanese companies in their sales to public sector

entities covered under the agreement.163 The United

States was also concerned about the method used by

procuring entities in setting and enforcing the

estimated price of their awards in relation to the actual

price and narrow interpretation by the Supercomputer

Procurement Review Board of its mandate to

investigate complaints. Japan agreed to provide a

response to the United States regarding these

implementation issues and to work with the United

States in confirming the delivery of two procurements

made during Japanese fiscal year (JFY) 1995.164

On May 17, 1996, the University Corporation for

Atmospheric Research (UCAR), funded in large part

by the National Science Foundation, announced that it

planned to buy a supercomputer from the NEC

Corporation, the first purchase of a Japanese

supercomputer by a U.S. government agency. At the

same time, the U.S. Department of Commerce advised

the National Science Foundation that it “had reached a

preliminary conclusion that the procurement does not

constitute an offer of fair value.”165 Japanese

government officials expressed concerns that the

Department of Commerce was attempting to block the

contract.166 The supercomputer was to be installed at

the National Center for Atmospheric Research in

Boulder, Colorado. In making its announcement, the

NSF indicated that NEC had won the right to enter into

final contract negotiations, although a final contract

had not been awarded. The contract was expected to

be worth $13 million to $35 million .167 Immediately
102

following the NSF’s announcement, Representative

David Obey (D-Wisconsin) criticized the decision,

which he said had been made despite clear and

compelling evidence that the computer was being

dumped in the United States. Representatives Obey

and Martin Sabo (D-Minn.) introduced an amendment

to a 1997 appropriations bill that would suspend the

salaries of NSF staff who approved the purchase of any

supercomputer whose price was determined by the

Department of Commerce to have been sold at less

than fair value. The amendment was approved by the

House of Representatives, but was later dropped by the

Senate Appropriation Committee. Japan’s Chief

Cabinet Secretary Kajiyama expressed concerns that

the so-called Obey amendment could violate the

WTO’s principle of non-discrimination in government

procurement.168

On July 29, Cray Research filed an antidumping

petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce and

the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging that

an industry in the United States was materially injured

or threatened with injury by reason of less than fair

value imports of vector supercomputers from Japan.

The USITC instituted an antidumping investigation

No. 731-TA-750, effective that date.169 On August 22,

1996, the National Science Foundation indicated that it

was delaying its purchase of a Japanese supercomputer

pending a decision by the Department of Commerce

and the USITC in their preliminary antidumping

investigations. On August 23, the U.S. Department of

Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation

to determine whether vector supercomputers from

Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than

fair value.170

On September 11, 1996, the USITC made an

affirmative determination in its preliminary

antidumping decision on imports of vector

supercomputers from Japan. The Commission found

that there was a reasonable indication that a U.S.

industry was threatened with material injury by reason

of imports of vector supercomputers from Japan that

are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair

value. The vote was 3 to 1.171

On October 15, NEC filed a lawsuit with the Court

of International Trade (CIT) in New York requesting

that an unbiased body be appointed to decide the

antidumping case brought by Cray. The suit alleged

that the Department of Commerce had violated the

“GATT antidumping code, the U.S.-Japan

Supercomputer agreement and well-established federal

procurement principles” by publicly endorsing the

merits of Cray’s dumping claim before the

antidumping investigation was initiated.172 The

lawsuit referred to the May 20 “predecisional

memorandum” of the U.S. Department of Commerce

that included estimates of dumping margins two

months before an antidumping petition was filed by

Cray.173 NEC alleged that “Commerce is biased and

has prejudged Cray’s dumping allegation.”174 A

decision in the case was to be made on February 25,

1997.175 Commerce, NEC and Cray filed submissions

with the CIT. On December 18, the CIT denied the

U.S. Department of Commerce’s motion to dismiss the

case brought by NEC Corp., disputing Commerce’s

claim that the CIT has no jurisdiction to hear the case

and allowing the case to continue. In late December,

the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it

would delay its preliminary decision regarding

antidumping by NEC from January 6, 1997 to March

28, 1997.176

Air Transport Services

Air Cargo

Japan is the largest transpacific air traffic market in

Asia.177 A 1952 U.S.-Japan agreement on transport

services governs “beyond” rights (flying rights to

third-country destinations) and allows each country to

designate an airline or airlines to provide scheduled

service of passengers and cargo to the other country.

The two countries differ on the interpretation of a

number of points in the agreement including whether

and how accessibility to Japan can be expanded and on

issues regarding “beyond rights.”178 Japan has sought

to revise the 1952 agreement and to restrain the ability

of U.S. carriers to expand their passenger and air cargo

service to other destinations after landing in Japan.179

According to U.S. industry, some of the problems

with servicing Japan’s passenger market include

insufficient runway capacity and inadequate

warehousing space at Japan’s airports.180 In addition,

air cargo service is affected by user fees imposed by

the Tokyo Air Cargo Terminal requirements to obtain

separate freight forwarding licenses needed to operate

nationwide transportation services, and paperwork

requirements regarding non-document shipments of

less than $100.181

During 1996, the United States and Japan

continued a series of bilateral negotiations on air cargo

service that had begun in September 1995.182 During

talks held in early March, Japan threatened to cancel

landing rights that had been granted to Federal Express

in July 1995. As a result, the United States suspended

the negotiations. Subsequently, fifty-seven U.S.

Senators sent a letter to President Clinton expressing

concerns that Japan’s actions “raised fundamental
103

questions about Japan’s commitment to free and fair

trade.”183 The letter directed the Administration to

“make very clear to the Government of Japan that any

action adversely affecting Federal Express’s cargo

routes will not be tolerated.” On March 27, 1996,

following five rounds of talks, the United States and

Japan announced an agreement that allowed Federal

Express, Northwest Airlines and United Air Lines

cargo flights to operate from any U.S. city and to

service three additional Japanese points; expanded the

number of UPS weekly cargo flights (UPS was

permitted to fly 12 weekly flights from the United

States to Kansai Airport in Osaka and to operate

beyond Kansai to up to two points in other countries);

and allowed the United States to designate another

carrier for all-cargo service for as many as six weekly

flights which could fly beyond Japan, but which could

not operate locally. Japan was also allowed expanded

service to the United Sates and beyond. Nippon Cargo

was permitted to operate 18 additional weekly U.S.

flights and to serve three new cities in addition to the

11 flights to four cities that it currently provides.

However, the agreement did not fully address the issue

of “beyond rights”.184

The air-cargo issue was re-opened on July 16,

when the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed

to restrict certain all-cargo operations by Japan Air

Lines (JAL) because Japan had failed to honor its

commitments under the U.S.-Japan bilateral aviation

agreement. Specifically, Japan had refused to approve

flights by Federal Express between Japan and five

other Asian cities (Manila, Cebu, Shanghai, Beijing

and Jakarta). The Department of Transportation

proposed to prohibit JAL from carrying cargo from

these same five cities through Japan and into the

United States.185 In response, Japan’s Minister of

Transport Yoshiyuki Kamei sent a letter of protest to

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Frederico Pena.

Japan indicated that it would counter-retaliate by

preventing Northwest and United cargo airplanes from

flying to Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Singapore, Cebu and

Manila via Japan.186 There were no further bilateral

talks before the end of 1996.

Passenger Service

Bilateral talks on passenger services had been

suspended since August 1993. Following the

agreement in the air cargo sector in March 1996, Japan

requested the resumption of formal talks in the

passenger services sector. The United States did not

agree to the request. However, informal discussions

were held in May and early June to attempt to set an

agenda for formal negotiations in this area.187 In order

to avoid disruption to summer passenger travel, the

United States and Japan agreed to temporarily suspend

the dispute until July 8. Under the temporary accord,

both countries agreed to approve outstanding requests

by airlines for new flights. 188 The United States

agreed to allow JAL to operate three weekly flights

between Tokyo and Kona, Hawaii until October 26 and

to increase its weekly flights from Sendai to Honolulu

from three to seven for five weeks. In return, Japan

allowed United Airlines to double its weekly flights

from Los Angeles to Tokyo for five weeks and to fly

seven weekly flights from Kansai in Osaka to Seoul

until October 26. Official negotiations were held

during June 28-29, but failed to achieve an agreement.

The key focus of the negotiations continued to be “the

existing right of U.S. carriers under the 1952

agreement to operate flights from the United States to

Japan and beyond to other Asian countries and Japan’s

refusal to approve such flights unless the United States

grants new extra-bilateral passenger rights for Japanese

carriers.”189

Following the breakdown in talks, the United

States indicated that it would resume discussions only

after Japan’s Ministry of Transport approved

Northwest’s request for new Osaka-Jakarata flights and

allowed United to continue its Tokyo-Los Angeles

flights. Japan’s Ministry of Transport had rejected

Northwest’s request, and the United States

subsequently suspended final approval of JAL’s new

Hiroshima-Honolulu route which was scheduled to

begin on July 4.190 Disruption in service was again

avoided when, Japan Air Lines was given permission

to operate as a “charter” by the U.S. Department of

Transportation and United was allowed to operate

between Tokyo and Los Angeles until July 15 as a

“special flight.” The temporary approvals were

renewed during the course of the summer while the

two governments negotiated.191

On August 16, the U.S. Department of

Transportation announced that negotiations with Japan

had ended without agreement. In announcing the

breakdown of the talks, the U.S. Department of

Transportation stated, “The United States is disturbed

at the failure of this round because it had brought to the

table an affirmative agenda as well as the flexibility to

meet concerns that Japan had raised during previous

rounds. Instead of responding with similar flexibility,

Japan rebuffed U.S. efforts by making new demands

and generally raising the ante for a successful

outcome.”192 In September, President Clinton sent a

letter to Prime Minister Hashimoto calling for the

negotiation of an “open skies agreement”, in

conjunction with discussions with other Asian-Pacific

countries.193
104

Mexico

In 1996, Mexico repaid most of the U.S. loans and

loan guarantees that were part of the international

rescue package the United States assembled for its use

early in 1995, following the peso crisis.194 The

Mexican Government drew only $12.5 billion of the

U.S. portion originally amounting to $20 billion, and

retired the major part of this amount ahead of schedule.

After a $7 billion prepayment in August 1996, leaving

a balance of only $3.5 billion outstanding,195 Mexico

made a full repayment of the remaining debt in January

1997. Retiring the U.S. loan allowed Mexico to regain

full access to that portion of its revenues from

petroleum exports that had been used as loan

guarantees.196

NAFTA (as now implemented in national law) is

now the primary framework affecting the conduct of

U.S.-Mexican trade relations. Mexican public opinion

was generally in favor of the NAFTA following 1994,

the first NAFTA year, when the accord’s benefits to

Mexico were not masked by adverse consequences of

that country’s sovereign economic policies. During the

second NAFTA year too, most Mexicans recognized

the advantages of a partnership with major economic

powers in a crisis, such as followed the crash of the

peso in December 1994.197 During the third NAFTA

year, however, doubts emerged in Mexico about the

U.S. commitment to the accord, based on certain

actions of the Government of the United States, such as

efforts to restrict imports of tomatoes and broom corn

brooms from Mexico; delay in allowing Mexican

trucks to cross into border states; and delays in lifting

embargoes on Mexican tuna and avocadoes.198

However, the Government of Mexico continues to

defend the NAFTA. Commerce Secretary Herminio

Blanco, for example, pointed out at his year-end press

conference that Mexican exports to the United States

have risen by 60 percent since the NAFTA took effect

three years ago.199

While probably the major U.S. concerns regarding

Mexico were that country’s role as a conduit for illegal

drugs entering the United States and as a source and

transit area of illegal immigration, several bilateral and

NAFTA-related economic issues were also active

during the year under review. A very contentious

one—the penetration of Mexican tomatoes to the U.S.

market—was settled in 1996, at least temporarily.

Another contentious issue was the U.S. embargo on

Mexican yellowfin tuna, instituted on environmental

grounds. This embargo has been an ongoing source of

tension between the two countries, but it heated up in

1996, without being resolved. Improved access to the

U.S. market for Mexican agricultural produce has been

a key Mexican objective. By early 1997, some

headway regarding avocadoes issues was finally made.

Tomatoes

On October 28, 1996, the U.S. Department of

Commerce (Commerce) and producers and exporters

of certain Mexican tomatoes200 signed a 5-year

suspension agreement following the filing of a petition

by U.S. tomato growers earlier in the year. The

agreement ended for the time being a longstanding

bilateral trade dispute over imports of low-priced

Mexican tomatoes, particularly those which enter

during the winter months in competition with winter

production in Florida. The agreement covers all fresh

or chilled tomatoes (henceforth tomatoes,) except for

cocktail tomatoes and those used for processing. The

accord provides that the tomatoes imported from

Mexico will be sold in the United States at, or above,

an established reference price. As a result of the

agreement, Commerce and the USITC suspended their

respective antidumping investigations.201

Florida tomato growers, claiming to be seriously

injured by increased imports of Mexican tomatoes, had

also sought import relief under the U.S. global

safeguard laws over the past two years. In 1995, the

Florida Tomato Exchange and its constituent member

growers requested under section 202 of the Trade Act

of 1974, also referred to as the U.S. global safeguard

law,202 that the USITC conduct an investigation to

determine whether fresh winter tomatoes are being

imported in such increased quantities as to be a

substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof,

to the domestic industry; petitioners requested that

provisional relief be provided pending completion of

the investigation. In April 1995, the USITC made a

negative determination in the provisional relief phase

of the investigation, and the petitioners subsequently

withdrew their petition.203

Legislation was subsequently introduced in both

houses of Congress to permit the USITC to consider

seasonal producers of a perishable agricultural

products as a separate industry.204 The proposed

legislation and a December 1995 proposal by USTR to

change the way TRQs on imports of Mexican tomatoes

are calculated were criticized by several foreign

governments and a diverse coalition of U.S.

agricultural associations saying that they would set a

dangerous precedent and have broad implications for

U.S. exports.205

Mexico’s criticism under the NAFTA of the U.S.

TRQ proposal was discussed in January 18, 1996 in

formal consultations under chapter 20 of the

NAFTA.206 Mexico said that the proposed measure
105

would have additional trade-restrictive effects and

would thus be contrary to the objectives and principles

set forth in the NAFTA.”207 USTR did not implement

the TRQ proposal and the proposed legislation was not

enacted.

On March 11, 1996, U.S. tomato and bell pepper

growers filed a petition with USITC under section 202

of the Trade Act of 1974,208 alleging that fresh

tomatoes and bell peppers were being imported into the

United States in such increased quantities as to be a

substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof,

to the domestic industries producing fresh tomatoes

and fresh bell peppers.209 On July 2, 1996, the

Commission made a negative injury determination and

no remedy was provided.210

On April 1, 1996, U.S. tomato growers filed a

petition with Commerce and the USITC under the U.S.

antidumping law. On May 16, 1996, the USITC

unanimously determined in the preliminary phase of its

investigation that there is a reasonable indication that

an industry in the United States is materially injured

by reason of imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico

alledged to have been sold at less than fair value.211

Pursuant to the USITC’s preliminary determination,

Commerce continued proceedings concerning the

margin of dumping, and the USITC continued its

injury inquiry. Mexico challenged the U.S.

antidumping proceedings under Article 17.3 of the

WTO Antidumping Agreement, alleging violations of

GATT Articles VI and X as well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 6

and 7.1 of the WTO Antidumping Agreement.

Consultations were held in August 1996. However, no

request for a dispute resolution panel was filed.212 A

suspension agreement was reached in October between

Commerce and the Mexican growers.213

 The agreement seeks to ensure that there will be

no undercutting or suppression of prices by setting a

reference price, which can be adjusted after one year, if

market conditions undergo significant changes.214 In

addition, the accord puts in place measures to ensure

effective enforcement and to prevent circumvention.215

Commerce is to monitor imports by requiring Mexican

exporters to submit quarterly certifications on prices.

Commerce also is to verify Mexican tomato prices

periodically. The accord may be terminated if its terms

are violated. The agreement was welcomed by the

U.S. industry.216

The agreement between Commerce and the

Mexican producers followed an announcement by

Commerce that it had preliminarily determined the

dumping margin to be 17.56 percent for most products

in question.217 However, as long as the accord remains

in effect, no antidumping duties will be assessed on

tomatoes from Mexico.

Yellowfin Tuna Embargo

The U.S. embargo on imports of yellowfin tuna

and tuna products from Mexico became contentious in

1996.218 In 1991, a court-ordered U.S. embargo took

effect that forbade yellowfin tuna imports from any

country whose vessels have an incidental

marine-mammal taking rate higher than that of U.S.

vessels.219 This embargo was implemented pursuant

to the 1984 amendment of the 1972 Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA), which was enacted to

minimize incidental killing of dolphins by tuna

fishing.220 Mexico responded to the embargo by filing

a complaint under GATT dispute settlement procedures

in 1991. It was this dispute in the GATT that triggered

an examination of the link between trade liberalization

and environmental protection measures. The dispute

centered on to what extent unilateral trade measures

otherwise inconsistent with multilateral trade

rules—namely, those involving invocation of GATT

article XX, on general exceptions to trade obligations

when in support of protection of human, animal, or

plant health and the conservation of natural

resources—can be used to enforce a national

environmental objective.

A GATT panel favored Mexico in the tuna dispute,

concluding that U.S. import restrictions brought under

the act were not justified on the basis of GATT article

XX, and so did not conform to U.S. obligations under

GATT articles III and XI regarding national treatment

and elimination of quotas, respectively.221 The GATT

panel concluded, among other things, that the United

States acted extra jurisdictionally, i.e. imposed its own

environmental standards beyond its borders on Mexico

through such trade action. In October 1991, however,

Mexico and the United States requested that the report

be removed from GATT Council consideration,

pending attempts by both parties to reach a bilateral

solution.222

The issue nonetheless reached the GATT Council

in 1994, when the Council considered a complaint by

the EU (on behalf of the Netherlands Antilles) against

the U.S. import ban on yellowfin tuna and tuna

products from countries not complying with the

MMPA. A second GATT panel on the tuna case

supported the first panel’s decision that the U.S.

embargoes were in violation of GATT articles III and

XI223 and constituted a trade barrier. The panel’s

conclusion was forwarded to the GATT Contracting

Parties at their 50th session in December 1994.224 The

Contracting Parties sent the reports of the two panels
106

back to the GATT Council. No further developments

took place in the matter under the GATT, or its

successor, the WTO.

In 1996, Congress considered legislation that

would have changed the U.S. marine mammal

protection laws and lifted the embargo on tuna caught

and processed by previously embargoed nations,

provided they comply with newly specified standards

on dolphin protection. On July 31, 1996, the House

approved HR 2823225 that would have replaced the

current ban by allowing the United States to sign the

Panama Declaration, an international agreement.226

The bill accepted the procedure prescribed by this

accord, i.e. posting official observers on fishing boats

to ensure that no dolphins are killed in the tuna fishing

process. If observers reported no dolphin death, the

tuna produced from the catch would be designated

“dolphin-safe,” and tuna cans would be labeled

accordingly. This would allow Mexican (and other

imported) products to gain access to the U.S. market.

Presently, no tuna or tuna product is considered

“dolphin safe,” if resulting from the practice of setting

nets on tuna that swim with the dolphins.

The Clinton Administration supported H.R. 2823

and S.1420, a companion bill in the Senate.227 On

October 7, 1996, President Clinton sent a letter to

Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, expressing his

personal commitment in this matter.228 However, the

proposed, more liberal “dolphin-safe” definition under

these bills was strongly challenged by environmental

groups, who doubted that the observer system would

be adequate in enforcing true dolphin-safety.

However, the legislation was opposed in the Senate and

the Senate version was not passed.

 Mexican officials expressed frustration over the

failure of Congress to lift the embargo and have

indicated that Mexico may retaliate against the

embargo.229

Avocadoes

In 1996, Mexico renewed its demands that the

United States lift its long-standing import ban on

avocados. This 83-year old embargo, barring Mexican

avocados from entry into the entire United States

except Alaska, was instituted to prevent possible fruit

fly contamination. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) proposed on July 3, 1995, a

partial lifting for the Haas variety of avocadoes from

Mexico’s Michoacan state to 19 Northeastern U.S.

states for the November-February period, when the

risk of pest infestation is minimal. The proposal,

which was consistent with NAFTA’s call for the

recognition of pest- and disease-free zones and was

based on scientific data showing diminished pest

infestation, drew strong opposition from California

avocado growers, who produce most of the U.S. crop.

After extensive review of the situation, by yearend,

USDA had not announced a change of policy,

frustrating Mexican officials, who were hoping for it to

boost Mexican avocado exports in the upcoming

season. However, on January 30, 1997, USDA lifted

the embargo on fresh avocadoes for the winter months

with respect to imports from Michoacan state that are

destined for the 19 Northeastern U.S. states, under

certain conditions as it outlined in 1995.

China

The dispute between the United States and China

over Chinese enforcement of intellectual property

rights (IPR) protection dominated U.S.-China trade

relations for the first half of 1996. This dispute

culminated on June 17, 1996, in a confirmation by

Acting USTR Barshefsky that China had taken certain

actions to suppress the illegal production of compact

audio, video, and computer disks and exportation of

illegally produced disks. In other areas, the United

States renewed MFN treatment of imports from China

amid less controversy over the annual decision than in

recent years. In September, the United States applied

sanctions against China for illegally transshipping

certain textile and apparel items. Negotiations on

China’s proposed accession to the WTO progressed as

China announced it would not issue policies

inconsistent with the WTO.

Intellectual Property Rights

Protection and Enforcement

During the 2 years after the United States and

China signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in

January 1992, the Chinese Government made the

required changes in its laws and regulations to lay the

foundation for an IPR system that could meet

international standards.230 It failed, however, in the

view of the U.S. Government, to meet its commitments

under the agreement to establish an adequate and

effective mechanism for IPR enforcement. In addition,

the U.S. Government found that China failed to

provide fair and equitable market access for persons

who rely on intellectual property rights protection.

On June 30, 1994, USTR Michael Kantor

identified China as a “priority foreign country” under

the Special 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974

and immediately initiated a 6-month investigation into

its IPR enforcement practices.231 Numerous
107

negotiations between the United States and China were

held on these issues. China indicated that it would take

some actions to address U.S. concerns, but U.S.

negotiators indicated that significant movement on a

majority of issues was lacking. Therefore, on

December 31, 1994, a list of products being considered

for retaliation was issued by the USTR and the

investigation was extended until February 4, 1995.232

On February 4, 1995, USTR Kantor announced trade

sanctions that would automatically take effect on

February 26, 1995, unless an agreement acceptable to

the United States could be reached.233

On February 26, 1995, the USTR announced that

the United States and China had reached an agreement

for China to take specific actions to provide protection

of IPR for U.S. companies and provide market access

for U.S. intellectual property-based products. The

agreement also led to the end of the Special 301

investigation, termination of the retaliatory tariffs, and

an end to China’s designation as a “priority foreign

country.” Under the terms of the accord, China agreed

to the following detailed commitments in three broad

areas of action:

 (1) Take immediate steps to address rampant

piracy throughout China—

 Implement a Special Enforcement Period

during which enhanced resources will be

allocated to cleaning up large-scale

producers and distributors of infringing

products.

 Take actions against the factories that are

currently producing infringing products.

 Prohibit the exportation of illegal products,

including pirate compact disks (CDs), laser

disks (LDs), and CD-ROMs (compact

disks containing computer software), and

allocate adequate resources to ensure that

this takes place.

 (2) Make long-term structural changes to ensure

effective enforcement of intellectual property rights—

 Establish a strong intellectual property

enforcement structure.

 Ensure that cross-jurisdictional

enforcement efforts are carried out

cooperatively and effectively.

 Create an effective customs enforcement

system modeled on the U.S. customs

service.

 Create a title verification system to help

prevent the production, distribution,

importation, exportation, and retail sale of

U.S. audio visual works as well as software

programs in CD-ROM format, without the

verified consent of the U.S. right holder.

Associations of U.S. right holders will be

allowed to establish offices in China to

participate in this system.

 Establish focused enforcement efforts for

intellectual property rights in audio visual

works, computer programs, and

publications.

 Ensure that U.S. right holders have access

to effective judicial relief.

 Establish a system whereby statistics

concerning Chinese enforcement efforts

are provided to the U.S. government, and to

provide for the Chinese and U.S.

Governments to meet on a regular basis to

discuss the adequacy of enforcement

efforts.

 Ensure the transparency of any laws,

regulations, or rules related to the grant,

maintenance and enforcement of

intellectual property rights.

 (3) Provide U.S. right holders with enhanced

access to the Chinese market. This includes a

commitment by China to—

 Place no quotas on the importation of U.S.

audio visual products.

 Allow U.S. record companies to market

their entire catalogue of works in China.

 Allow U.S. intellectual property-related

companies to enter into joint venture

arrangements to produce, distribute, and

sell their products in China. They will be

able to establish operations in Shanghai

and Guangzhou initially and expand to

eleven other cities within five years. 234

By the fall of 1995, U.S. officials expressed

concerns that China was lagging in implementing some

parts of the agreement, despite progress in other parts.

The United States expressed general satisfaction with

Chinese actions to stop the sales of pirated products at

the retail level and with its efforts to put an IPR

administrative structure in place that should, over time,

contribute to enhanced enforcement efforts.235

Subsequently, USTR Mickey Kantor and U.S.

negotiators emphasized several areas in which China

needed to make improvements in order to satisfy terms

of the 1995 IPR agreement. Concerns that dominated

U.S.-China IPR dialogue included the U.S. contention

that—

 Thirty or more factories continued to

produce pirated CDs, LDs, and CD-ROMs,
108

and that China should take actions to end

piracy in these plants;

 Chinese customs border enforcement was

inadequate to stop exports to third-country

markets of pirated CDs, LDs, and

CD-ROMs; and

 China had not yet taken the steps necessary

to provide access for U.S. exports of

intellectual property-based products.236

On April 30, 1996, China was designated a

“priority foreign country” under Special 301

provisions, because of continued insufficient

implementation of the 1995 IPR agreement. On May

15, 1996, Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky

announced a preliminary retaliation list of $3 billion

worth of U.S. imports from China, and said that if

China failed to take action to satisfy U.S. concerns,

prohibitive tariffs would be imposed on June 17, 1996,

on approximately $2 billion worth of products drawn

from the list. The preliminary sanctions list included

approximately $2 billion worth of textile and apparel

items, $500 million in consumer electronics items, and

$500 million in other consumer goods. The products

chosen were produced mainly in Guangdong Province,

the location of most of the factories producing

counterfeit goods. Alternative sources of production

exist for the textile and apparel items chosen, with the

exception of three categories of silk goods.

China threatened to retaliate if the United States

actually imposed sanctions. China announced a

retaliation list that included 100-percent ad valorem

additional tariffs on U.S. agricultural and animal

husbandry products, vegetable oils and fat, vehicles

and their spare parts, telecommunications equipment,

and a group of miscellaneous products, as well as the

suspension of imports from the United States of certain

audio-visual products, and suspension of the handling,

examination, and approval of applications for chemical

and pharmaceutical registration and for certain types of

investment by U.S. firms. Chinese sanctions against

the United States were to become effective on the day

U.S. sanctions against China became effective.237

Late in the day on June 17, 1996, after last-minute

discussions between Ambassador Barshefsky and

Chinese officials in Beijing and after visits to

Guangdong Province by U.S. officials to observe the

most recent enforcement efforts, Ambassador

Barshefsky announced that sanctions would not be

imposed. She confirmed that China had taken the

following actions:

 The closing of 15 out of 31 CD factories,

prohibition of the establishment of new CD

plants, and the prohibition of the

importation of CD presses. Imminent

implementation of a monitoring and

verification system whereby licensed CDs

would include an SID code identifying the

CD press that produced a particular CD,

thereby identifying the producer of the CD.

CDs lacking an SID code would be

considered to be counterfeit and subject to

seizure and destruction.

 Reinstatement of the “Special

Enforcement Period” provided for in the

1995 IPR agreement. This includes a

focused enforcement effort in regions of

rampant piracy, most notably in

Guangdong Province, and a nationwide

enforcement effort focused on wholesale

and retail markets, as well as on

transporters of pirated goods.

 Enhanced border enforcement of the

prohibition of export of illegal audio-visual

products and of import of illegal CD

presses.238

MFN Status

On May 31, 1996, the President issued his official

determination to renew China’s MFN status for another

year.239 MFN tariff treatment, the nondiscriminatory

rates of duty that the United States applies

unconditionally to imports from most countries, is

extended to imports from China under the President’s

authority to waive full compliance with the

freedom-of-emigration requirements (Jackson-Vanik

Amendment) imposed on nonmarket economy

countries by section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974. The

waiver for China, which has been in effect since

February 1980, expires on July 3 of each year unless

the President issues a determination to extend it at least

30 days before the scheduled expiration date.

In 1996, as in each previous year since 1989,

legislation was introduced in the Congress to

disapprove the President’s waiver extension for China

or to subject its continuation to human rights

conditions in addition to freedom of emigration. A

measure that would have denied renewal extension of

China’s MFN status (H.J.Res. 182) was defeated in the

House on June 27, 1996. 240

In his waiver renewal for China in 1993, President

Clinton attached human rights conditions for renewal

in 1994.241 He reversed this policy in 1994, delinking

MFN renewal from human rights conditions except the

freedom-of-emigration requirement. He explained,

however, that he was basing his decision on the belief

that increased contact with China, rather than the
109

denial of its MFN status, “offers us the best

opportunity to lay the basis for long-term sustainable

progress in human rights and the advancement of our

other interests in China.”242

Illegal Transshipments of

Textiles and Apparel

On January 17, 1994, the United States and China

concluded a bilateral textile agreement that was to

remain in effect until the end of 1996.243 Both before

and after the 1994 agreement, the United States alleged

that Chinese textile and apparel items have been

“transshipped” illegally in an attempt to circumvent

U.S. quotas that limit imports of textiles and apparel

from China. The practice of transshipment involves

the transit of goods through third countries and

becomes illegal when labeling or documentation of

country-of-origin is falsified.

In 1996, the United States applied sanctions against

China for the third time under provisions of the 1994

bilateral agreement for illegal transshipments.244 The

United States held consultations with China on this

matter from March 25 through March 27, 1996, during

which the United States presented China with evidence

of transshipments.245 On September 6, 1996, after an

extensive investigation by the U.S. Customs Service

and other government agencies, Acting USTR

Barshefsky announced approximately $19 million in

charges against China’s 1996 quota allowance.246

Triple charges were applied to the quota levels in 5 out

of the 13 categories cited for sanctions. This is the first

time that triple charges have been applied under the

1994 U.S.-China bilateral textile agreement.247

On November 10, 1996, China announced it would

suspend its imports of some U.S. commodities in

retaliation for the U.S. sanctions, effective December

10, 1996.248 This retaliation became intertwined with

negotiations that had begun in October 1996 on a new

U.S.-China bilateral textile agreement to replace the

pact scheduled to expire at the end of 1996.249 On

December 9, 1996, China postponed the retaliation that

had been postponed for 30 days, “because the

consultations are to be continued and the U.S.

delegation has promised to re-study the disputed quota

cut cases,” according to a MOFTEC spokesman.250

On December 23, 1996, the Office of the USTR

announced that the current agreement would be

extended until January 31, 1997, following December

19-21 negotiations in San Francisco during which

progress was made toward renewing the 1994 bilateral

agreement.251 Agreement was reached on February 1,

1997 on a new four-year bilateral textile agreement.

The agreement extends U.S. import quotas on textiles

and apparel from China, cuts quotas in product areas

where China had made repeated transshipment

violations, and establishes market access for U.S.

textile exports to China.

WTO Accession Negotiations

China has sought membership in the WTO and its

predecessor, the GATT, since 1986. China did not

accede to the WTO in 1996, but there were meetings of

the Working Party on the Accession of China

(henceforth, Working Party) in 1996 as well as

renewed bilateral negotiations on accession between

China and the United States and other WTO members.

The Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek had

been one of the founding members of the GATT in

1947, but withdrew in 1950 after the Communists

gained control of the mainland and established the

People’s Republic of China (China). China reapplied

for membership in 1986, viewing its bid as a

“resumption” of GATT contracting party status. A

GATT working party was set up in 1987 to begin the

process of reviewing China’s trading system and

economy in terms of compliance with GATT rules.

However, the process was suspended as a result of the

Chinese Government’s military suppression of the

prodemocracy movement in June 1989 and of the

slowdown in reforms that followed. A resurgence of

reforms prompted the resumption of the GATT

working party meetings in early 1992. China pressed

for accession by the end of 1994 in order to qualify for

founding membership in the WTO, which succeeded

the GATT as the world’s trade forum on January 1,

1995, but was not successful.252

In November 1995, then-Deputy USTR Barshefsky

presented the Chinese with a “roadmap.” which laid

out conditions that the United States wants China to

meet for accession to the WTO. The United States and

other WTO members have proceeded from the

principle that China’s membership must be

accomplished on terms that provide for meaningful

market access and the incorporation of the disciplines

of WTO provisions into China’s trade regime. China

formally applied for WTO membership in late 1995.253

The United States and China held bilateral talks on

a number of occasions in 1996, mostly after Assistant

USTR Lee Sands was named to head the U.S.

negotiating team in September. Working Party

meetings were held in March and October/November.

The March Working Party resulted in China’s

subsequent provision of additional information related

to its trade regime and other policies related to trade.
110

The October/November Working Party meeting

resulted in a Chinese announcement of the

implementation of a standstill (an agreement not to

introduce new trade restrictions) and that they would

issue no WTO-inconsistent policies during the course

of the accession negotiations. The United States

regards this as a sign that China is prepared to begin a

serious negotiation.254

Market Access Agreement

The 1992 MOU signed by the United States and

China committed the Chinese Government to lift

import quotas, licensing requirements, and controls at

the end of each year for a 5-year period.255 Although

the MOU eliminated import barriers on some product

groups ahead of schedule in 1993, the first year of the

agreement, it did not lift the restrictions scheduled to

be eliminated at the end of 1994 until June 30,

1995.256 This delay in implementation stemmed from

strained relations between the United States and China

based, in part, on a dispute regarding IPR, and because

of problems arising from China’s accession

negotiations to the WTO at the beginning of 1995.257

China eliminated restrictions on 176 items on

schedule at the end of 1995.258 Restrictions on 17

commodities were scheduled to be eliminated on

December 31, 1996. Commodities on which

restrictions were to be eliminated include bottled

waters, pesticides, and radios and radio parts.259

Taiwan

As part of their effort to join the WTO, Taiwan

authorities in recent years have made numerous

changes to Taiwan’s tariffs, nontariff measures, and

trade-related regulations. These changes, once fully

implemented, are expected to increase the openness of

Taiwan’s economy to international markets and expand

opportunities for foreign businesses in Taiwan. In

addition to joining the WTO, Taiwan hopes to attract

financial, shipping, and other services by casting itself

as an Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center

(APROC) for international businesses. The APROC

initiative concentrates on six sectors: manufacturing,

sea transportation, air transportation, financial services,

media services, and telecommunications. Taiwan

authorities hope that the effect of the APROC initiative

will allow Taiwan to remain internationally

competitive and play a major role in the economic

future of the region.

To meet the twin goals of WTO accession and the

development of APROC, in 1996 Taiwan took steps to

conform some of its trade and investment rules with

international standards. Bilateral negotiations with

Taiwan revisited many long-standing issues,

particularly in the context of WTO accession talks.

Other major issues discussed in 1996 included possible

involvement by Taiwan firms in IPR piracy in China,

concern over the ability of U.S. firms to supply

medical devices and telecommunications equipment to

the Taiwan market, and liberalization of the financial

sector.

Protection of Intellectual

Property Rights

Protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in

Taiwan is a regular topic of bilateral negotiations

between the United States and Taiwan. In recent years,

Taiwan has taken several steps to improve protection

of IPR. Recent laws enacted by Taiwan were designed

to protect integrated circuit (IC) layouts and personal

data. Taiwan’s earlier failure to enact IC protection was

a factor in keeping Taiwan on the Special 301 watch

list in 1995.260 In the U.S. view, enactment of the two

laws, together with legislation under consideration to

protect trade secrets, brings Taiwan’s legal framework

largely into conformity with WTO standards on

Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

In addition, improved enforcement of existing laws has

helped to reduce some piracy of computer software and

trademarked goods.261 Taiwan’s Export Monitoring

System, initiated in 1993 in response to U.S. pressure,

has reportedly helped reduce exports of pirated

products by Taiwan.

 In April 1996, the United States noted that Taiwan

had made “significant strides” in improving IPR

protection and, therefore, downgraded Taiwan’s status

under Special 301 from the “watch list” to the “special

mention list.” Citing “growing concerns about IPR

problems” and “expectations for future progress,”

USTR announced that it would conduct an out-of-cycle

review of Taiwan’s IPR protection within the next 6

months.262 In response, Taiwan implemented an

18-point program263 designed to improve IPR

protection through education, enforcement, export

monitoring, and fighting participation by

Taiwan-owned firms in piracy taking place in China

(so-called “cross-straits piracy”).264 A growing

regional IPR issue in recent years has been

collaborative piracy of CD-ROMs among Hong Kong,

Taiwan, and China.265 According to U.S. industry

representatives, Taiwan plays an important role in
111

piracy of software among Taiwan, Hong Kong, and

China. A group of CD manufacturers based in Taiwan

pledged not to sell master CDs or CD-making

machinery without proper authorization from holders

of the relevant rights.266

Taiwan took several steps to improve IPR

protection in 1996. During IPR consultations in

September, Taiwan authorities announced that its law

enforcement officials had been instructed to investigate

and prosecute under Taiwan law cases in which Taiwan

nationals counterfeit copyrighted articles in China.

Taiwan took other actions in 1996 to counter CD

piracy including, conducting the largest crackdown on

CD piracy in the Island’s history, which confiscated $1

billion worth of cassettes and CDs; requiring CD

makers to mark identification numbers on the CDs they

produce; and securing agreement from Taiwan’s CD

manufacturers not to invest in production of pirated

CDs in China.267

After the out-of-cycle review, which ended in

November 1996, the United States removed Taiwan

from the “special mention list.” In making the change,

the United States signaled that IPR protection in

Taiwan had improved since the April review began.

The United States cited Taiwan’s “aggressive

implementation” of the 18-point action plan and

discouragement by Taiwan authorities of investment by

Taiwan firms in Chinese facilities that produce pirated

CDs as the main reasons for the improved protection of

IPR in Taiwan.268 At the time of the announcement,

USTR Barshefsky added that “Taiwan has made a

serious effort to address IPR problems over the last six

months, and has achieved considerable success.”269

The move marked the first time since 1992 that Taiwan

was not cited under any aspect of Special 301

provisions.270

Medical Devices

In 1995, Taiwan’s National Health Insurance

Bureau established rules on reimbursement prices for

medical devices as part of its national health care plan.

The plan implemented brand-name price lists for

determining reimbursement prices for a number of

medical devices and equipment, an action that cut

reimbursement prices by as much as 20 to 30 percent.

The U.S. Health Industry Manufacturers Association

(HIMA) criticized the move, stating that the cuts

appeared designed to favor domestic purchases of

medical devices. They argued that lower

reimbursement prices for medical devices reduced the

incentive for U.S. firms to sell their most advanced

products in Taiwan thereby favoring lower-cost,

domestic producers of less advanced technology

products. HIMA and the United States Government

also criticized Taiwan’s method for setting

reimbursement prices as non-transparent and

burdensome because of a requirement that foreign

firms supply price data not required from domestic

companies. In July 1996, HIMA filed a petition with

USTR requesting that the practices be considered

under Super 301.271

In November 1996, the United States and Taiwan

reached agreement to preserve access for U.S. medical

devices in Taiwan’s market. Taiwan agreed to ensure

that its medical insurance authorities do not

discriminate against U.S. exports of medical devices.

In particular, Taiwan agreed that it would not require

cost data from foreign manufacturers not also required

of domestic firms and would not use non-transparent

procedures or arbitrary price controls on medical

devices that favor domestic producers.272

WTO Accession

A Working Party was established in September

1992 to consider Taiwan’s application to join the

GATT and to negotiate terms for Taiwan’s

membership.273 By yearend 1996, the Working Party

had held seven meetings, most recently in December

1995. In addition to the multilateral working party,

Taiwan is also conducting bilateral accession

negotiations with 26 current WTO members.

Approximately half of those negotiations were

concluded by the end of 1996.274

The United States and Taiwan held several bilateral

talks on Taiwan’s WTO accession during 1996.

Outstanding issues under discussion at yearend

included tariffs and quotas for automobiles and other

industrial goods; tariffs and distribution arrangements

on certain agricultural commodities; and tariffs, taxes,

and other aspects of market access on products that are

currently the responsibility of the Taiwan Tobacco and

Wine Monopoly Bureau (TTWMB). Another aspect of

the talks on TTWMB include reforming the bureau to

meet WTO requirements of national treatment, MFN,

and transparency. In late 1996, Taiwan authorities sent

two draft laws pertaining to alcohol and tobacco to the

legislature for approval. The draft laws provide for

private manufacturing and repackaging of alcohol and

tobacco products, sets requirements on advertisement

of these products, and sets the year 2000 as the

deadline for privatization of the Taiwan’s tobacco and

wine monopoly.275

In other areas, the United States has requested that

Taiwan make market access commitments in legal and

financial services, adhere to the WTO Aircraft
112

Agreement,276 and accede to the WTO Agreement on

Government Procurement (AGP). In the procurement

area, although U.S. firms participate in public

procurement in Taiwan, most procurement is awarded

to domestic bidders. As a result, the extent of

participation by U.S. and foreign firms in contracting

in Taiwan is limited.277 As part of its efforts to make

public procurement more consistent with WTO rules,

Taiwan developed a procurement law that included a

bid protest mechanism and began publishing a

government procurement bulletin in 1996.278

Taiwan’s WTO accession process includes revision

of numerous tariffs, quotas and other import policies in

Taiwan. In September 1996, Taiwan announced a

comprehensive tariff reduction package. The plan to

cut tariffs on 1,121 import categories and, once fully

implemented, would lower Taiwan’s average tariff

from 8.6 percent ad valorem to 8.4 percent. Average

tariff rates on agricultural and industrial products will

be 20.0 percent and 6.2 percent, respectively. The

tariff package included changes to liberalize tobacco

and wine markets, in line with WTO accession talks.

The plan called for replacing monopoly taxes on

imported tobacco and wine products with tariffs and

other domestic taxes at rates below the current

monopoly tax.279 Taiwan has indicated that it will

allow rice imports after WTO accession, but the size of

the import quota and other issues, such as inspection,

sampling, and grading, are still under negotiation. In

1996, Taiwan proposed a rice import scheme that

would allow minimum market access of 6 percent of

average annual rice consumption, gradually increasing

to 8 percent over 6 years.280 In July, Taiwan changed

other provisions affecting sales of tobacco and alcohol.

The maximum prices for alcohol and tobacco products

were increased and the allowable profit margins on

sales of such goods were raised from 8 percent to 20

percent. In addition to making the TTWMB more

consistent with WTO obligations, the increases are

expected to increase profitability of sales of tobacco

and alcohol and boost market share of imported

products in Taiwan.281

Telecommunications

In January 1996, after 4 years of debate, Taiwan

passed legislation to overhaul the legal framework

governing the telecommunications sector. The

legislation, which permits foreign investment in the

sector, is expected to create opportunities for U.S. and

other foreign telecommunications service providers.

Taiwan’s growing telecommunications services market

was estimated at $5.3 billion in 1995. In addition to

allowing foreign investment, the legislation revamped

Taiwan’s telecommunications regulatory structure. The

Directorate General of Telecommunications (DGT),

formerly both regulator and monopoly

telecommunications service provider, was relieved of

the latter role. The responsibility for providing

telecommunications services was shifted from the

DGT to a newly-created state agency, Chung Hwa.

This division of authority was designed to remove the

possibility for conflict of interest between the regulator

and telecommunications operating companies.282

Foreign firms were formerly not allowed to

provide basic or value-added network (VAN) services

in Taiwan. Under the legislation passed in January,

foreign firms are allowed to provide up to 20 percent

of basic services, including cellular, paging, trunking

radio, and wireless data services. Foreign providers

are allowed to provide up to 100 percent of the market

for VAN services, such as voice services, information

storage and retrieval, information processing, remote

transactions, and electronic data interchange.283

The new law is seen as an important step in

liberalizing Taiwan’s telecommunications sector.

Foreign investors, however, said that the 20-percent

foreign ownership limit on basic services and a 11.9

percent cap on return on investment were too limited to

present a viable business opportunity.284 Several U.S.

firms also expressed concerns about Taiwan’s plans for

allocation of the radio spectrum for new market

entrants in cellular and personal communications

services. They indicated that the portion of the

spectrum allocated to these services may be

insufficient for developing a customer base. U.S.

companies were concerned that not enough of the

spectrum would be put up for bid and that Taiwan

authorities would not grant island-wide licenses. Both

limitations, the companies said, would hinder the

ability of new entrants to compete in Taiwan’s cellular

market.285

In early 1996, Taiwan published proposed “key

points” describing the bidding procedures for wireless

services. U.S. firms expressed concern that the

procedures overemphasized the size of the bidder’s

performance bond and underemphasized the

importance of technical and operational merits in bid

selection. U.S. firms were also concerned about the

possibility of political interference in the bid

qualification process. In addition, Taiwan authorities

delayed finalizing a fee structure for use of the radio

spectrum by wireless service providers.286

In July 1996, the United States and Taiwan held

discussions on the aspects of the new

telecommunications law that had the effect of limiting

foreign participation in Taiwan. As a result of those
113

talks, Taiwan agreed to remove a cap on profits on new

telecommunications companies, ensure that foreign

telecom firms could interconnect with the central

phone system on the same terms as Chung Hwa, and

relax stringent debt/equity requirements of

participating firms. In response to the agreement,

Acting USTR Barshefsky said that “removal of these

barriers is a good first step toward moving from a

monopoly to a competitive market in Taiwan’s

telecommunications sector.”287 Taiwan further agreed

that Chung Hwa would not cross-subsidize its wireless

services with revenue from its basic

telecommunications monopoly, nor discriminate in

pricing for interconnection.288

Financial Sector Liberalization

In an effort to promote Taiwan as an international

financial center, Taiwan has taken steps in recent years

to open the financial sector to foreign participation.

Many observers state that successful implementation of

the APROC plan, however, will require significant

liberalization of the financial services sector in Taiwan

to attract foreign capital. Financial liberalization in

1996 included relaxing some restrictions on capital

flows, allowing conversion of foreign currency loans

to local currency, easing foreign exchange restrictions

on banks, and easing rules on forward foreign

exchange contracts. Taiwan also eased rules on foreign

insurance companies289 and expanded limits on

foreign participation in its stock market.290

Revision of Taiwan’s Offshore Banking Statute is

one of the goals of the APROC plan. In the securities

sector, new rules were introduced in 1996 to ease

restrictions on offshore banking activities in Taiwan.

The changes would authorize offshore banking units to

accept foreign currency deposits from residents, to

obtain capital funds by selling Taiwan residents

products such as bank-issued, foreign currency

certificates of deposit, money market instruments, and

other securities. In addition, offshore banking units

would be allowed to participate in a wider range of

transactions, including giving advice on, negotiating

and opening foreign currency-denominated letters of

credit for non-residents.291

Korea

U.S. trade relations with Korea in 1996 centered on

several recurring market access disputes. In July, the

United States announced that it was taking steps that

could lead to trade sanctions against Korea in response

to involvement by the Government of Korea in the

telecommunications sector. During the year, the

United States continued efforts to improve market

access for imported automobiles in Korea. Imports

account for less than 2 percent of automobiles sold in

Korea, which is the world’s third largest auto exporter.

Longstanding agricultural disputes also continued in

1996. Korea’s shelf-life standards for imported meat

and import clearance procedures for fruits and other

agricultural products remained trade disputes in 1996.

After the United States brought the import clearance

dispute to the WTO, Korea announced that it would

revise its import clearance procedures. By the end of

the year, Korea had completed its process of acceding

both to the OECD and the WTO Agreement on

Government Procurement.

Telecommunications

Section 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988 requires an annual review

of U.S. telecommunications trade agreements. This

review process has regularly included Korea. In recent

years, the United States has negotiated a series of

bilateral telecommunications trade agreements with

Korea. These agreements have been designed to

improve procurement practices, strengthen protection

of IPR by Korea Telecom, clarify standards-related

issues, regularize type approval of equipment, and

provide equal treatment for U.S. firms pursuing

procurement opportunities in Korea.292

In March 1996, the United States and Korea

reached an understanding on implementation of a 1992

telecommunications agreement.293 In subsequent

talks, the two sides failed to reach agreement on

preventing involvement by the government of Korea in

wireless procurement decisions. The United States

estimates that by the year 2000, the size of Korea’s

wireless market will reach $6.5 billion and the total

market for telecommunications equipment and services

will reach $100 billion.294

In July 1996, as a result of a breakdown in the

talks, the United States identified Korea as a “priority

foreign country” pursuant to section 1374 of the act. In

making the designation, USTR said that it was

particularly concerned about “Buy Korean”

preferences in procurement practices by both public

and private entities in Korea, nondiscriminatory access,

the need for increased transparency in Korea’s telecom

regulations, and protection of intellectual property

rights.295 Designation as a priority foreign country

under section 1374 starts a one-year timetable leading

to possible imposition of sanctions. In July, however,

Acting USTR Barshefsky said that the United States

did not intend to wait that long to resolve the
114

dispute.296 Talks in late 1996 failed to narrow the

differences between the two sides.297

Automobiles

The low level of sales of imported automobiles in

Korea has been a source of bilateral friction in recent

years. The United States maintains that Korea supports

a “sanctuary market for automobiles” while pursuing

an aggressive automobile export strategy.298 Although

Korea is now the world’s third largest auto exporter

after Japan and the European Union, in 1995 Korea

imported 6,000 vehicles from the United States and

4,300 from the EU, which accounted for less than one

percent of all automobiles sold in Korea. Korea’s

exports of automobiles to the United States and Europe

in 1995 reached 191,000 and 180,000 units,

respectively. By late 1996, imports of automobiles,

although up from earlier levels, accounted for 1.5

percent of the total market in Korea.299

The United States and Korea signed an MOU in

late 1995 designed to improve market access for

foreign automobiles. The MOU covers Korea’s

treatment of foreign automobiles in the areas of

taxation, standards and certification procedures,

advertising, auto financing, and consumer

perception.300 Among other things, the MOU was

designed to combat excessively high taxes on imported

automobiles, remove certification requirements on new

models of automobiles, remove restrictions on access

to television advertising, counter the perception of the

Korean consumer that purchase of a foreign

automobile will result in a tax audit for the purchaser,

and implement a consultation mechanism.301

In 1996, the United States reviewed Korea’s

progress in implementing the MOU. The U.S. report

noted that Korea had made some progress in cutting

barriers in the areas of safety and emission standards

and certification, taxes on foreign passenger vehicles

(except jeep-type vehicles), advertising regulations,

improving consumer perceptions of imported vehicles,

and retail financing. The United States said that “much

more needs to be done” by Korea to open its

automobile market to a level comparable to that of the

United States. The United States noted that, although

growing, sales of U.S. passenger vehicles remain at

very low levels. In a joint statement, USTR and

Commerce said that although Korea had “generally”

implemented the September 1995 agreement, it was

“still too early to see any significant impact on the

Korean auto market.” They also expressed concern

about taxes on jeep-type vehicles. Sport utility

vehicles are the fastest growing segment of the Korean

automobile market. In their statement, Acting USTR

Barshefsky and Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor

said that “Korea remains the most closed market of the

major world auto producers.”302

By late 1996, the United States concluded that

Korea had “largely met” its obligations under the 1995

MOU. However, significant market access barriers for

automobiles remain under discussion. These barriers

include Korea’s method for determining taxation on

automobiles, financial liberalization of auto leasing and

wholesaling, and certification requirements. In late

1996, Commerce Secretary Kantor observed that the

U.S. market share for automobiles in Korea, which

remains at about 1 percent, indicates discriminatory

practices in Korea’s auto market. Secretary Kantor

again called on Korea to repeal tax increases on sport

utility vehicles, revise the method for determining

taxation on passenger automobiles, cut the import tariff

on automobiles, and liberalize financial restrictions on

auto leasing. On the issue of taxation, Korean taxes on

automobiles escalate based on engine size. The United

States has requested that Korea instead calculate auto

taxes based on the value of the vehicle. U.S.

automakers point out that, under the current formula,

the taxation burden falls heaviest on large-size

automobiles, which the U.S. automakers export to

Korea. Korea maintains that taxation of sport utility

vehicles is consistent with the MOU because it was

announced prior to signature of the agreement and that

taxation based on engine size is designed to protect the

environment.303

Shelf-Life Agreement

A long-standing dispute between the United States

and Korea has centered on certain Korean measures

that impede market access for imported beef and pork

in Korea. The United States has negotiated a series of

agreements in recent years designed to improve market

access for beef and pork. In the most recent

agreement, reached in July 1995, Korea agreed to

phase out its system for determining shelf-life for meat

products and lengthen the time period for offering

tenders for the purchase of pork products.304 Under the

agreement, Korea agreed to phase out its system of

setting shelf-life periods by regulation and instead to

allow food manufacturers to set their own “use-by”

dates, similar to the practice followed in most other

countries. Korea also agreed that it would not use

temperature specifications for meat products to restrict

imports. Korea did not, however, agree to liberalize its

mandated seven-week shelf life requirement for

sterilized milk. The United States reserved its rights to
115

use WTO dispute settlement procedures to resolve this

issue.

Korea began phasing in provisions of the

agreement in July 1995. Other provisions were

scheduled to take effect in July 1996.305 However, the

United States requested consultations in 1996 with

Korea over inadequate implementation of the

agreement. In late 1996, the United States said that it

would request that a WTO dispute settlement panel

consider the issues if the problems were not

resolved.306

Import Clearance

In May 1996, the United States filed a complaint at

the WTO protesting Korea’s testing and inspection

procedures for imported fruit and vegetables. The

United States alleges that phytosanitary inspection

delays, to meet requirements of the Ministry of Health

and Welfare and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry

and Fisheries, prevent fruit from clearing customs for

up to a month, versus 3-4 days in other countries in the

region. Korea requires inspection of 100 percent of

agricultural products at the time of import, instead of

using random sampling as is done in other

countries.307 These delays, the U.S. points out,

contribute to spoilage of imported products prior to

customs clearance.

The U.S. complaint centers on Korea’s import

clearance requirements for fruit and vegetables,

particularly import inspection and fumigation for pests

already existing in Korea (so-called “cosmopolitan

pests”); incubation testing for the Mediterranean fruit

fly on fruit grown in California; sorting, repackaging

and relabeling requirements; and food safety standards

for processed foods.308 U.S. exporters state that these

requirements are excessive, costly, and result in

increased spoilage. Other complaints about import

clearance include storage of imported oranges for up to

five months until after the domestic crop is

marketed.309 At a WTO meeting to consider the

dispute, several WTO members indicated support for

the U.S. position regarding import clearance

difficulties in Korea.310

In late 1996, Korea announced that it was revising

its import clearance procedures under the Plant

Quarantine Act. Several changes appear to modify

regulations or practices under discussion in the WTO

dispute. The main revisions include acceptance of

shipments containing cosmopolitan pests, requiring a

pest risk analysis only for commodities that had not

previously been imported into Korea, and eliminating

incubation tests for citrus grown in California

(Florida-grown citrus would still be subject to an

incubation test). Finally, the new regulations remove a

requirement on both California and Florida citrus that

all citrus was grown in an area free of medflies. These

changes in the Plant Quarantine Act are expected to

ease clearance difficulties of many agricultural exports

to Korea.311

Korea’s New Economy

Korea’s current 5-year plan for a “New Economy”

and its “Globalization” initiatives are designed to

reduce government regulation, increase the

decision-making role of the private sector in the

economy, and open more sectors of the economy to

foreign participation. Many of its elements, if

implemented, would affect the structure of economic

relations in Korea and the role of the government in

Korea’s economy that underlie many bilateral trade

disputes. The plan includes initiatives to attract new

foreign investment, protect intellectual property rights,

liberalize the financial sector, privatize state-owned

enterprises, implement administrative deregulation,

and overhaul the land acquisition law.312

Some of these reforms are also being undertaken to

bring Korea into conformity with OECD standards in

light of Korea’s recent accession to that organization.

Korea formally acceded to the OECD in October,

1996. Before accession, Korea agreed to open its

economy in several areas to conform to OECD

standards and to meet requirements of the

organization’s Committee on Capital Movements and

Invisible Transactions and the Committee on

International Investment and Multinational Enterprises.

Changes announced by Korea in the context of OECD

accession include reducing limits on foreign ownership

of domestic stocks, allowing foreign banks to establish

wholly-owned subsidiaries, allowing foreign

ownership of long-term corporate debentures,

permitting domestic firms involved in infrastructure

projects to borrow from foreign lenders, and allowing

foreign securities companies to set up wholly-owned

subsidiaries in Korea.313

Government Procurement

In 1996, Korea’s government procurement

practices continued to be a subject of bilateral

negotiations. As noted above, the United States has

been urging Korea for several years to adopt

transparent and nondiscriminatory procurement

practices for telecommunications equipment.

Government procurement in Korea is centralized in the

Office of Supply, Republic of Korea (OSROK).
116

Korean authorities reportedly press for local

procurement. Purchasing agencies may also request

that suppliers provide offsets in addition to the

procured goods. Offsets may include required levels of

local-content, investment, technology transfer, or other

factors that benefit the local economy.

The WTO Agreement on Government Procurement

(AGP) is one of the WTO plurilateral agreements.314

By the end of 1996, Korea had completed its

negotiations on accession to the agreement, with

implementation set to begin in early 1997. The AGP

rules are designed to ensure transparency in

government procurement. The agreement also includes

a bid protest mechanism. Upon accession, members

agree to allow foreign bidding on government

procurement contracts of specified products by

specific agencies.

Korea agreed to apply GPA rules to procurement of

goods and services, including construction and

computer network procurement, by central and

sub-central government entities and many state-owned

commercial enterprises. Major government-owned

enterprises covered by the GPA are Korea Electric

Power Corporation, the Korea Petroleum Development

Corporation, the Korea General Chemical Corporation,

and Korea Telecom. Korea excepted procurement by

Korea Telecom of telecommunications goods and

network equipment from GPA rules. The United

States, however, maintains that its annual review of

telecommunications agreements under Section 1377 of

the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,

should be sufficient to allow U.S. companies to

compete for contracts of such goods in Korea.315
117

ENDNOTES

1 For discussion of activity in 1996 under section

301 regarding Canadian periodicals and Canadian

communications practices see ch. 5.

2 For a discussion of the Cuban Liberty and

Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act, see ch. 6.

3 USITC, International Economic Review,

“Tariffication or Duty Free?,” April 1994, pp. 12-13.

4 North American Free Trade Agreement, Arbitral

Panel Established Pursuant to Article 2008, In the

Matter of Tariffs Applied by Canada to Certain

U.S.-Origin Agricultural Products (Secretariat File No.

CDA-95-2008-01), Final Report of the Panel, Dec. 2,

1996, para. 16.

5 NAFTA Chapter Twenty contains provisions

addressing the “settlement of all disputes ...

regarding the interpretation or application” of the

Agreement itself, except for the antidumping and

countervailing duty matters separately provided for in

Chapter Nineteen.

6 The decision of the panel was unofficially

published in Inside NAFTA, “Confidential Draft Shows

NAFTA Win for Canada’s Dairy, Poultry Farmers,”

Vol. 3, No. 15, July 24, 1996, pp. 1, 19.

7 North American Free Trade Agreement, Arbitral

Panel Established Pursuant to Article 2008, In the

Matter of Tariffs Applied by Canada to Certain

U.S.-Origin Agricultural Products (Secretariat File No.

CDA-95-2008-01), Final Report of the Panel, Dec. 2,

1996, para. 9.

8 USTR, “Joint Statement of the Acting U.S.

Trade Representative and the Secretary of

Agriculture Regarding Release of the NAFTA Panel

Report on Canadian Agricultural Tariffs,” press

release 96-93, Dec. 2, 1996.

9 North American Free Trade Agreement,

Arbitral Panel Established Pursuant to Article 2008,

In the Matter of Tariffs Applied by Canada to Certain

U.S.-Origin Agricultural Products (Secretariat File No.

CDA-95-2008-01), First Submission of the United

States, Jan. 22, 1996, para. 15.

10 USTR, “U.S. Requests NAFTA Panel to

Examine Canadian Agricultural Tariffs,” press release

95-49, July 14, 1995.

11 North American Free Trade Agreement,

Arbitral Panel Established Pursuant to Article 2008,

In the Matter of Tariffs Applied by Canada to Certain

U.S.-Origin Agricultural Products (Secretariat File No.

CDA-95-2008-01), Final Report of the Panel, Dec. 2,

1996, para. 55.

12 Ibid., para. 127.

13 Ibid., para. 199.

14 Ibid., para. 209.

15 USTR, “Joint Statement of the Acting U.S.

Trade Representative and the Secretary of

Agriculture Regarding Release of the NAFTA Panel

Report on Canadian Agricultural Tariffs,” press

release 96-93, Dec. 2, 1996. The Canadian

reaction to the panel decision is presented in

Department of Foreign Affairs and International

Trade, “Ministers Welcome NAFTA Panel Decision,”

press release No. 229, Dec. 2, 1996.

16 For background on the bilateral lumber issue,

particularly 1995 developments leading up to the

bilateral agreement, table 5-1 and see USITC, The

Year in Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC publication 2971,

pp. 47-8.

17 Office of the United States Trade

Representative, “Statement of Ambassador Kantor on

Finalizing the Softwood Lumber Agreement,” press

release 96-35, Apr. 2, 1996. Canadian Department

of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,

“Agreement on Softwood Exports Preserves U.S.

Market Access for Five Years, Eggleton Says,” press

release No. 56, Apr. 2, 1996.

18 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and

International Trade, “Minister Eggleton Announces

Softwood Lumber Plan,” press release No. 157, Sept.

10, 1996.

19 Canadian lumber producers exceeded their

quotas for exports to the United States during the

third quarter. U.S. Department of State telegram,

message reference no. 5051, “Summary of Canadian

Economic and EST Developments, October 18 -

November 13, 1996,” prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Ottawa, Nov. 15, 1996.

20 Globe and Mail, “Lumber prices slip, trading

slows to a crawl.” June 13, 1996, p. B2; Journal of

Commerce, “Turmoil hits lumber trade,” June 24,

1996.

21 USTR, “Statement of Ambassador Kantor on

Finalizing the Softwood Lumber Agreement,” press

release 96-35, Apr. 2, 1996, press release 96-35,

Apr. 2, 1996.

22 The futures price for lumber on Apr. 1, 1996,

the effective start date of the Agreement, was $361

per thousand board feet (mbf), peaking at $487 per

mbf on Nov. 12, 1996. On Dec. 31, 1996, the

futures price was $424 per mbf. Source: Chicago

Mercantile Exchange.

23 National Association of Home Builders,

Housing News, Nov. 19, 1996.

24 The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports is the

lobbying arm representing the majority of the

domestic lumber industry on this issue.

25 Ragosta, John, “Moderation of Market

Volatility,” Dewey Ballantine Nov. 22, 1996

Memorandum.

26 Washington Post, “Builders Hit Lumber Pact

With Canada,” Nov. 23, 1996, p. E16.

27 U.S. exports of logs from Federal and State

lands west of the 100th meridian are prohibited,

while Canadian exports of logs from Provincial and

Federal lands must be deemed “surplus to domestic

needs” and then are subject to a 100 percent export

tax.

28 Globe and Mail, “U.S. Lumber Producers See

Trade Pact as Interim,” Dec. 13, 1996, p. B5.
118

29 See Appendix 6.B.1 to Annex 300-B to the

NAFTA.

30 U.S. Department of State telegram, message

reference no.1087, “Labor Unrest at Large Montreal

Apparel Producer Linked to U.S. Trade Concerns,”

prepared by American Consulate, Montreal, June 7,

1996.

31 For more details, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC publication 2971, 

pp. 39-42.

32 Transatlantic Business Dialogue, Progress

Report, Brussels, May 23, 1996.

33 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Automobile Environment and Safety Standards:

Toward Agreement on Incorporating the U.S. in

UN/ECE WP 29,” message reference No. 9332,

prepared by U.S. Mission to the EU, Brussels, Oct.

28, 1996.

34 Transatlantic Business Dialogue, Chicago

Declaration, Nov. 9, 1996.

35 ”New Transatlantic Agenda, Senior Level

Group Report to the U.S.-EU Summit,” Dec. 16,

1996.

36 All products subject to electromagnetic

compatibility requirements.

37 Matt Breitfelder, “The Transatlantic Business

Dialogue: Chicago Conference Exceeds Expectations

and Confirms the TABD as a Major Force for a More

Open Transatlantic Market,” Business America, Nov.

1996, pp. 22-23.

38 U.S. Department of State, “Fact Sheet: Mutual

Recognition Agreements Gained Through NTA,” Dec.

15, 1996.

39 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mutual

Recognition Agreements - Let’s Move the Process

Forward,” message reference No. 155757, prepared

by U.S. Department of State, Washington, July 26,

1996.

40 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Recent

EC Comments on US-EU Negotiations on Mutual

Recognition Agreements on Conformity Assessment,”

message reference No. 3586, prepared by U.S.

Mission to the EU, Brussels, Apr. 11, 1996; U.S.

Department of State telegram, “Mutual Recognition

Agreements - Let’s Move the Process Forward,”

message reference No. 155757, prepared by U.S.

Department of State, Washington, DC, July 26, 1996;

and U.S. Department of State telegram, “Mutual

Recognition Agreements: Austrian Views,” message

reference No. 4824, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Vienna, Aug. 2, 1996.

41 U.S. Department of Commerce telegram,

“Chicago Transatlantic Business Dialogue

Conference,” message reference No. 7493, prepared

by U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC,

Nov. 21, 1996. Negotiators were unable to meet the

Jan. 31, 1997 deadline but hoped to conclude the

package of MRAs by the semi-annual U.S.-EU

summit at the end of May.

42 U.S. Department of State telegram, “US/EU

Mutual Recognition Agreements - USG GMP

Proposal Demarche,” prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Washington, DC, Oct. 20, 1996.

43 “US, EU Closer to Pharmaceuticals MRA,”

Washington Trade Daily, Nov. 13, 1996, p. 2.

44 For information on the content of the

agreement, see, for example, U.S. Department of

Commerce telegram, “Chicago Transatlantic Business

Dialogue Conference,” message reference No.

07493, prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC, Nov. 21, 1996.

45 European Commission Delegation, Office of

Press and Public Affairs, “The European Union and

the United States Initial an Agreement on Customs

Cooperation and Mutual Assistance in Customs

Matters,” European Union News, Nov. 7, 1996.

46 Agreement Between the European Community

and the United States of America on Customs

Cooperation and Mutual Assistance in Customs

Matters, Nov. 7, 1996.

47 For more details, see table 5-1 and USITC,

OTAP, 1990, USITC publication 2403, p. 101; and

USITC, OTAP, 1989, USITC publication 2317, p. 93.

48 The research was conducted by the United

Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission and a

November 1995 international scientific conference

sponsored by the EU Commission.

49 USDA, “Statement by Secretary Glickman on

the U.S. Request for Consultations Under the World

Trade Organization About the European Union’s

Hormone Ban,” press release 0040.96, Jan. 26,

1996.

50 See, for example, U.S. Department of State

telegram, “Hormone Ban - The European Parliament

and the Council of Ministers Insist on Maintaining EU

Restrictions,” message reference No. 612, prepared

by U.S. Mission to the EU, Brussels, Jan. 24, 1996;

and U.S. Department of State telegram, “UK

Government Criticized Over Hormone Stance,”

message reference No. 2111, prepared by U.S.

Embassy, London, Feb. 21, 1996.

51 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Hormone

Ban - The European Parliament and the Council of

Ministers Insist on Maintaining EU Restrictions,”

message reference No. 612, prepared by U.S.

Mission to the EU, Brussels, Jan. 24, 1996.

52 USTR, “WTO Panel to Review EU Hormone

Directive,” press release 96-43, May 20, 1996.

53 For details, see 61 F.R. 33149-33150.

54 Ibid.

55 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Dispute Settlement Consultations on Section 301

Beef Hormones Retaliation,” message reference No.

3695, prepared by U.S. Mission, Geneva, May 24,

1996; and U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Instructions for WTO DSB Meeting of July 15,

1996,” message reference No. 145857, prepared by

U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, July 13,

1996.

56 Government of Canada, Department of

Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “Canada

Seeks WTO Panel on Beef Growth Hormones,” press

release No. 170, Sept. 20, 1996.

57 For more details, see table 5-1 and USITC,

The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC publication
119

2971, pp. 50-51; and USITC, The Year in Trade:

OTAP, 1994, USITC publication 2894, pp. 75-76.

58 Council Regulation No. 404/93 on the

Common Organization of the Market in Bananas,

Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ)

No. L 47 (Feb. 25, 1993), pp. 1-11.

59 For more details, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC publication 2971, pp.

50-51; USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994,

USITC publication 2894, pp. 75-76; and U.S.

Department of State telegram, “WTO Banana

Consultations—March 14, 1996,” message reference

No. 56143, prepared by USTR, Washington, DC,

Mar. 20, 1996.

60 For more details, see “Request for

Consultations on EU Banana Regime,” reprinted in

Inside Washington Publications, Inside U.S. Trade,

Feb. 9, 1996, p. 22; or WTO Internet site.

61 For more details, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC publication 2971, pp.

50-51; and USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994,

USITC publication 2894, pp. 75-76.

62 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Dispute Settlement Body Meeting 24 April 1996:

Instructions,” message reference No. 85603,

prepared by USTR, Washington, DC, Apr. 25, 1996.

63 The Lomé Convention is a trade and aid pact

between the EU and the ACP countries. The

banana protocol, part of the Lomé Convention,

provides special trade preferences to ACP banana

producers.

64 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Banana Consultations—March 14, 1996,” message

reference No. 56143, prepared by USTR,

Washington, DC, Mar. 20, 1996.

65 For more information on the panel’s findings,

see GATT, “Panel Report on EC Banana Import

Regime Presented,” Focus, No. 108, June 1994, p.

5.

66 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Guidance

on WTO Interim Report on EU Banana Regime,”

message reference No. 65846, prepared by U.S.

Department of State, Washington, Apr. 9, 1997. An

interim panel report issued March 18, 1997, found

that the EU banana import regime violates WTO

rules.

67 USTR, “USTR Announces Results of Section

301 Investigations of the Banana Regimes of Costa

Rica and Colombia,” press release 96-2, Jan. 10,

1996; and U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Results of Banana Section 301,” message reference

No. 4772, prepared by USTR, Washington, DC, Jan.

17, 1996.

68 See for example, U.S. Department of State

telegram, “CARICOM Foreign Ministers Meeting, May

13-14,” message reference No. 3066, prepared by

U.S. Embassy, Kingston, Jamaica, June 10, 1996;

and Canute James, “Caribbean Banana Producers

Accuse US of Trying to Squash Their Economies,”

The Journal of Commerce, Oct. 18, 1996.

69 See for example, U.S. Department of State

telegram, “Bananas: U.S. Position on Caribbean

Status at WTO Panel,” message reference No.

139018, prepared by USTR, Washington, DC, July 4,

1996; USTR, “Banana Alternatives Summary.”

70 WTO, “Panel to examine EC banana regime,”

WTO Focus, No. 11, June-July 1996, p. 5.

71 For more information on this act, see ch. 6 of

this report.

72 European Commission Delegation, Office of

Press and Public Affairs, “European Commission

President Jacques Santer Underlines EU’s Deep

Concern with Helms-Burton Legislation to President

Bill Clinton,” European Union News, July 12, 1996.

73 European Commission Delegation, Office of

Press and Public Affairs, “EU Council of Ministers

Spells Out Retaliatory Measures,” European Union

News, July 15, 1996; and European Commission

Delegation, Office of Press and Public Affairs, “EU

Adopts Regulation in Defense Against Helms-Burton

Act,” European Union News, Oct. 29, 1996.

74 For more information, see the section on

Cuba in ch. 6 of this report.

75 For more information, see U.S. Department of

State telegram, “1997 Trade Act Report - European

Union,” message reference No. 010479, prepared by

U. S. Mission to the EU, Brussels, Dec. 11, 1997.

76 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Modest

Results in December Agriculture Council,” message

reference No. 010822, prepared by U.S. Mission to

the EU, Brussels, Dec. 26, 1996. The Apr. 1

deadline was not met.

77 European Commission Delegation, Office of

Press and Public Affairs, “The European Commission

Has Decided to Authorize Genetically Modified Maize

in the Light of Available Scientific Advice,” European

Union News, Dec. 18, 1996.

78 For more information, see U.S. Department of

State telegram, “1997 Trade Act Report - European

Union,” message reference No. 10479, prepared by

U. S. Mission to the EU, Brussels, Dec. 11, 1997.

79 For more information on the ITA, see ch. 2 of

this report.

80 The 1991 agreement replaced a bilateral

agreement reached in 1986 which was intended to

end dumping of Japanese semiconductors in the

United States and third markets and to increase

foreign market access in Japan. For background

information on the 1986 U.S. Japan Semiconductor

Arrangement, see USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP,

38th Report, 1986, USITC publication 1995, pp. 4-26

and 4-27.

81 Some analysts noted that the increase in

U.S. sales could be attributed to the decline in the

value of the dollar, to increases in the quality of U.S.

semiconductors, and to an increase in demand for

high-value U.S.-made microprocessors.

82 For background information on the 1991

semiconductor agreement, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1991, USITC publication 2554, p. 107.

Japan consistently criticized the 1986 agreement as

an example of managed trade and vowed not to

enter into an agreement containing specific market

share provisions. Japan was particularly critical of

the requirement in the 1991 agreement that

Japanese semiconductor producers maintain and

make available within 14 days, if needed, pricing and
120

cost data in the format used in deciding anti-dumping

cases.

83 On Dec. 20, 1996, USTR announced that the

first quarter 1996 market share was revised

downward from 30.6 percent to 26.9 percent “as a

result of erroneous data provided by the Japanese

government on the overall size of the Japanese

market for that period.” USTR, “Foreign Market Share

for Semiconductors Falls in First Half of 1996,” press

release 96-98, Dec. 20, 1996. U.S. industry

representatives indicated that earlier knowledge of

the error might have changed their negotiating

strategy.

84 Also on June 11, 100 members of the U.S.

House of Representatives wrote a letter to President

Clinton urging him to renew the U.S.-Japan

Semiconductor Arrangement. The letter noted the

importance of the Government of Japan to the

success of the agreement in monitoring and reporting

foreign market shares.

85 USTR, “U.S. and Japan Reach

Semiconductor Accord,” press release 96-95, Aug. 2,

1996.

86 “Joint Statement by the Government of Japan

and the Government of the United States Concerning

Semiconductors,” Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 2, 1996.

87 Ibid., p. 2.

88 On Dec. 19, 1996, Semiconductor Industry

Association (SIA) and Electronics Industry

Association of Japan (EIAJ) concluded an agreement

to collect quarterly cost and price data from January

1, 1997 through July 31, 1999 in the same format

that was used under the 1991 semiconductor

agreement. The relevant collected data for the most

recent four quarters would be submitted to relevant

antidumping authorities within 14 days after a

questionnaire is received. Additional data would be

submitted to antidumping authorities in accordance

with normal antidumping procedures. The agreement

also included a statement supported by Japan

indicating that the three U.S. petitioners for the

suspended 1991 erasable programmable read-only

memory (EPROM) antidumping investigation would

inform the U.S. Department of Commerce that they

support revocation of the EPROM Suspension

Agreement and termination of the EPROM

antidumping investigation. The United States

supported a statement indicating that the two

semiconductor industry associations recognize it “may

be desirable to extend these measures to third

country suppliers and expect this subject to be dealt

with in further meetings of the Global Government

Forum.” “EIAJ/SIA Statement Regarding Effective and

Expeditious Antidumping Measures,” and

“Memorandum of Understanding Between EIAJ and

SIA Regarding Semiconductors,” Dec. 19, 1996.

89 “Agreement Between EIAJ and SIA on

International Cooperation Regarding Semiconductors,”

Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 2, 1996.

90 “Joint Statement,” p. 2.

91 “Agreement Between EIAJ and SIA on

International Cooperation Regarding Semiconductors,”

Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 2, 1996.

92 Letters between Ira Shapiro, USTR Senior

Counsel and Hisashi Hosokawa, Vice Minister for

International Affairs, MITI, Sept. 18, 1996.

93 The EU had objected to the 1991 agreement

between the United States and Japan, saying that it

had disadvantaged their industry and favored the

creation of a multilateral forum such as the GGF

instead. With regard to joining the new agreement,

the EU indicated that while it might be willing to

lower tariffs, it was particularly concerned about the

preconditions included for joining the Semiconductor

Council (i.e. the elimination of tariffs).

94 The first GGF meeting was held in Tokyo on

December 16 including participants from the United

States, Japan, the EU and Korea.

95 Ibid., pp. 2-3.

96 “Measures by the Government of Japan and

the Government of the United States of America

Regarding Autos and Parts,” Aug. 23, 1995 and

USIA, “Joint Statement by Ryutaro Hashimoto,

Minister of International Trade and Industry of Japan

and Michael Kantor, United States Trade

Representative Regarding Autos and Auto Parts,”

press release, June 28, 1995. For additional

background information regarding the agreement, see

USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1995, USITC

publication 2971, pp. 53-54 and 68.

97 Ibid.

98 The Interagency Enforcement Team is

co-chaired by the U.S. Department of Commerce and

the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. USTR,

“USTR and Department of Commerce Announce

Unprecedented Monitoring Mechanism for U.S.-Japan

Automotive Agreement,” press release 95-63, Sept.

6, 1995.

99 Submission of the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association to the USITC, Apr. 10,

1996, p. 2.

100 USIA, “Joint Statement by Ryotaro

Hashimoto, Minister of International Trade and

Industry of Japan and Michael Kantor, United States

Trade Representative Regarding Autos and Auto

Parts,” press release, June 28, 1995.

101 The first semi-annual report was issued on

Apr. 12, 1996.

102 U.S. Department of Commerce and the

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Report to

President William Jefferson Clinton of the Interagency

Enforcement Team Regarding the U.S.-Japan

Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts, Oct. 21, 1996,

p. 1.

103 American Automobile Manufacturers

Association, “New Outlets Are Far From Goal,”

AAMA Report, Nov. 1996, p. 1.

104 See, for example, American Automobile

Manufacturers Association, “Automakers’ Japan Sales

Rise in September, but Only One New Dealer Outlet

Added,” press release, Oct. 18, 1996.

105 U.S. Department of Commerce and the

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Report to

President William Jefferson Clinton of the Interagency

Enforcement Team Regarding the U.S.-Japan

Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts, Oct. 21, 1996,

p. 27.
121

106 “Critical parts” are those parts which are

considered essential for vehicle safety and emissions.

Ibid., p. 42.

107 Ibid., p. 45.

108 Ibid., p. 44.

109 Ibid., p. 33.

110 USTR, “Ambassador Barshefsky Settles

Insurance Dispute with Japan,” press release 96-97,

Dec. 15, 1996, pp. 1-2.

111 USTR, Senior USTR Official, background

briefing, Dec. 4, 1996.

112 U.S. embassy statistics reported in Michiyo

Nakamoto, “U.S. and Japan in a Tangle on

Insurance,” Financial Times, Dec. 6, 1996, p. 4.

113 Ibid.

114 For background information on the 1994

agreement see, USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP,

1994, USITC publication 2894, pp. 82-83.

115 Under the current rating system, drivers were

divided into three groups based solely on age and

different premium rates were applied to each group.

116 “Measures by the Government of the United

States and the Government of Japan Regarding

Insurance,” Oct. 11, 1994, p. 11.

117 For background information on the

agreement, see USITC, OTAP, 46th Report, 1994,

USITC publication 2894, p. 82.

118 Michiyo Nakamoto, “U.S. and Japan in a

Tangle on Insurance,” Financial Times, Dec. 6, 1996,

p. 4.

119 See, for example, Testimony of Ambassador

Ira Shapiro, USTR, before House Ways and Means

Subcommittee, Mar. 28, 1996.

120 John Maggs, “Japan’s Move to Cancel

Insurance Talks Dismays U.S.,” Journal of

Commerce, Mar. 29, 1996, A3.

121 Japan Economic Institute, Apr. 12, 1996, pp.

9-10.

122 Kyodo, “Japan: Kajiyama Comments on

Hashimoto’s Letter to Clinton on Trade,” Foreign

Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), Aug. 6, 1996.

123 USTR, “Japan and the U.S. Reach Interim

Understanding in Insurance Talks,” press release

96-76, Oct. 1, 1996.

124 “Supplemental Measures by the Government

of the United States and the Government of Japan

Regarding Insurance,” Dec. 24, 1996, Washington,

DC.

125 USTR, “Identification of Trade Expansion

Priorities Pursuant to Executive Order 12901,” Oct. 1,

1996.

126 Japan Economic Institute Report, Nov. 22,

1996, pp. 7-8.

127 “U.S. and Japan in a Tangle on Insurance,”

Financial Times, Dec. 6, 1996, pp. 4-5.

128 Robert Steiner, “Japan Offers to Drop Some

Regulations on Insurance to Settle Dispute With

U.S.,” New York Times, Dec. 12, 1996, p. A2.

129 USTR, “Ambassador Barshefsky Settles

Insurance Dispute with Japan,” press release 96-97,

Dec. 15, 1996, pp. 1-2.

130 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimates

Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, p. 208.

131 Dewey Ballentine for Eastman Kodak

Company, Privatizing Protection: Japanese Market

Barriers in Consumer Photographic Film and

Consumer Photographic Paper, Memorandum in

Support of a Petition Filed Pursuant to Section 301

of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, May 1995,

pp. I and ii.

132 USTR, “USTR Kantor Initiates Investigation

of Japanese Market Barriers for Consumer

Photogrpahic Film and Paper,” press release 94-47,

July 3, 1995.

133 60 F.R. July 7, 1995. For a summary of the

301 case, see table 5-1.

134 USTR, National Trade Estimates Report on

Foreign Trade Barriers, p. 208 and FBIS, “Japan:

Article Discusses Film Dispute, U.S. WTO Action,”

Sankei Shimbun, June 17, 1996, p. 3 and FBIS,

“Japan: Tsukahara Welcomes U.S. Decision to Take

Film Case to WTO,” June 14, 1996.

135 “Kodak Continues to Call for Government

Negotiations; Japan FTC Survey Seen as Possible

Delaying Tactic,” Eastman Kodak Company press

release, Feb. 21, 1996.

136 USTR, National Trade Estimates Report on

Foreign Trade Barriers, p. 208, “Japan: FTC to

Investigate Photo Film, Paper Markets,” Kyodo, Feb.

21, 1996, “Japan to Conduct Study of Trade

Practices in Film Market,” New York Times, Feb. 22,

1996, p. D6. Earlier in the year, the United States

had indicated that it wanted to see progress in the

film sector and three other areas by the time of the

Clinton-Hashimoto summit in April.

137 “Kodak Continues to Call for Government

Negotiations; Japan FTC Survey Seen as Possible

Delaying Tactic,” Eastman Kodak Company press

release, Feb. 21, 1996.

138 “The Era of ‘Bilateralism is Over’—Not,”

Speech by Ira Wolf, Director, Japan Relations and

Vice President, Asia-Pacific Region, Eastman Kodak

Company at Program on U.S.-Japan Relations,

Harvard University, Oct. 17, 1996.

139 USTR, “Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky

Announces Action on Film,” press release 96-48,

June 13, 1996 and GATT, “Restrictive Business

Practices: Arrangements for Consultations,” BISD

9S/29.

140 “The Era of ‘Bilateralism is Over’—Not,”

Speech by Ira Wolf, Director, Japan Relations and

Vice President, Asia Pacific Region, Eastman Kodak

Company at Program on U.S.-Japan Relations,

Harvard University, Oct. 17, 1996.

141 USTR, “Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky

Announces Action on Film,” press release No. 96-48,

June 13, 1996.
122

142 USTR, “Consumer Photographic Materials in

Japan,” Fact Sheet, June 13, 1996.

143 USTR, “Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky

Announces Action on Film,” press release No. 96-48,

June 13, 1996.

144 Ibid.

145 61 F.R. 30929.

146 “Kodak Submission May Prompt Full FTC

Investigation of Film Sector,” Inside U.S. Trade, June

21, 1996, p. 9.

147 USTR, “U.S. to Request WTO Panels on Film

and Large Scale Retail Store Law,” press release No.

96-67, Aug. 12, 1996.

148 Letter from Ambassador Booth Gardner to

Ambassador Minoru Endo.

149 FBIS, “Kodak Files Complaint with FTC Over

Film Market,” Kyodo, Aug. 7, 1996, p. 1.

150 USTR, “U.S. to Request WTO Panels on Film

and Large Scale Retail Store Law,” press release No.

96-67, Aug. 12, 1996.

151 “Japan Criticizes U.S. Appeal to WTO,”

Journal of Commerce, Aug. 14, 1996.

152 USTR, “United States Requests WTO

Panel—Separate GATS Case to be Expanded,” press

release No. 96-72, Sep. 30, 1996.

153 During the same period of time when the

U.S. was taking actions against Fuji in the U.S.

market, Fuji asked the U.S. Department of Justice to

take action against alleged antitrust actions

(combining photofinishing and film sales) of Kodak in

the United States market. Washington Trade Daily,

Oct. 7, 1996, p. 3.

154 USTR, “WTO to Launch Panel on Film

Case,” press release 96-86, Oct. 15, 1996; and

WTO, “Overview of the State-of-Play of WTO

Disputes,” http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin, htm,

Dec. 20, 1996.

155 USTR, “Statement by USTR-Designate

Charlene Barshefsky,” Press Release No. 97-12, Feb.

20, 1997. The first substantive meeting of the panel

was scheduled for April 16-17, 1997 and the final

report was tentatively scheduled for issuance on

September 17, 1997.

156 WTO, “Overview of the State-of-Play of WTO

Disputes,” http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm,

Dec. 20, 1996.

157 Frances Williams, “Panel to Probe U.S.

Photofilm Complaint,” Financial Times, Oct. 17, 1996.

”Europeans Join U.S. Complaint in Kodak-Fuji Case;

WTO Agrees to Name Panel,” Japan Digest, Oct. 17,

1996.

158 For background information on the 1992

agreement, see USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP,

1992, USITC publication 2640, p. 62.

159 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Paper:

Preparation for 1996 Paper Review,” message

reference No. 6326, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Tokyo, July 9, 1996.

160 U.S. Department of State telegram, “April 10

ACCJ Meeting with JPA,” message reference No.

540, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Tokyo, June 14,

1996.

161 USTR, “Identification of Trade Expansion

Priorities Pursuant to Executive Order 12901,” Oct. 1,

1996. During a March 6-7 semiannual meeting to

review the status of the agreement, little progress

was reportedly made with regard to extending the

agreement.

162 For background information, see USITC, The

Year in Trade: OTAP, 1993, USITC publication 2769,

p. 95.

163 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimate Report

on Foreign Trade Barriers, pp. 184-185.

164 USTR, “Annual Report on Discrimination in

Foreign Government Procurement,” April 30, 1996, p.

6.

165 “Commerce Memo on Supercomputer

Dumping Margin,” from Paul L. Joffe, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce to Dr. Neal Lane, National

Science Foundation, May 20, 1996, printed in Inside

U.S. Trade, Sept. 13, 1996, p. 1, 19-22.

166 “Japan Plea for Supercomputer Sale to U.S.,”

Financial Times, May 21, 1996, p. 8.

167 John Markoff, “U.S. Computer Bid Won By

Japanese,” New York Times, May 18, 1996, p. A1.

168 U.S. Department of State telegram, No.

005986, “Supercomputers: Chief Cabinet Secretary

Voices Concern about Obey Amendment,” prepared

by U.S. Embassy, Tokyo, June 28, 1996.

169 61 F.R. 43527-43530.

170 61 F.R. 43527-43530.

171 61 F.R. 50331 and USITC, “ITC Votes to

Continue Case on Vector Supercomputers from

Japan,” Inv. No. 731-TA-650, press release ER

96-040, Sept. 11, 1996.

172 Letter from Robert Montgomery, Jr., Counsel

to NEC Corporation and HNSX Supercomputers, Inc.

to Michael Kantor, Secretary of Commerce, Oct. 15,

1996.

173 “Commerce Memo on Supercomputer

Dumping Margin,” from Paul L. Joffe, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce to Dr. Neal Lane, National Science

Foundation, May 20, 1996 printed in Inside U.S.

Trade, Sept. 13, 1996, p. 1, 19-22.

174 Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 97-23,

Feb. 18, 1997.

175 John Markoff, “A New Twist in Computer

Deal Appears,” Jan. 7, 1997, p. D1 and Japan

Economic Institute Report, Oct. 25, 1996, p. 5.

176 On February 25, 1997, the Court of

International Trade ordered the Department of

Commerce to delay its preliminary ruling until March

28, 1997.

177 Economic Strategy Institute, Turbulence Over

the Pacific, March 1996, Submission to U.S.

International Trade Commission hearing in

conjunction with Investigation No. 332-365, “U.S.

Interests in APEC Trade Liberalization,” held Apr., 2,

1996.
123

178 Arthur J. Alexander, “Civil Aviation in the

United States and Japan: Colliding Cultures,” Japan

Economic Institute Report, Sept. 2, 1994.

179 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimates Report

on Foreign Trade Barriers, p. 202.

180 Submission of United Air Lines, Inc., for

hearing in conjunction with USITC investigation No.

332-365, “U.S. Interests in APEC Trade

Liberalization,” held Apr., 2, 1996.

181 Submission of Federal Express Corporation,

for hearing in conjunction with USITC investigation

No. 332-365, “U.S. Interests in APEC Trade

Liberalization,” held Apr., 2, 1996.

182 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimate Report

on Foreign Trade Barriers, p. 202.

183 Letter from Senator Larry Pressler, Fritz

Hollings, et al to President William Clinton, Mar. 20,

1995.

184 U.S. Department of Transportation, “U.S.,

Japan Reach Agreement on Air Cargo Service,”

press release 61-96, Mar. 27, 1996. The agreement

was signed on Apr. 16, 1996 in Washington, DC.

185 U.S. Department of Transportation, ”DOT

Proposes Sanctions in Response to Japan’s Refusal

to Approve FedEx Service,” press release 167-96,

July 16, 1996.

186 “Japan: Transport Minister to Protest U.S.

Sanctions on JAL,” FBIS, July 18, 1996.

187 “U.S.-Japan Passenger Aviation Negotiators

Can’t Even Agree on an Agenda,” Japan Digest,

June 10, 1996, p. 21.

188 “Tokyo, Washington Reach Temporary Truce

in Aviation Talks,” FBIS, May 2, 1996 and “U.S. and

Japan Agree Truce on Aviation Rights,” Financial

Times, May 2, 1996, p. 4.

189 U.S. Department of Transportation, “U.S.,

Japan Aviation Talks End Without Agreement,” press

release No. 186-96, Aug. 16, 1996.

190 “Tokyo Plans Counteraction to U.S. Rejection

of JAL Flight,” FBIS, July 3, 1996, p. 1.

191 Kyodo, “Japan: JAL Gets U.S. Nod to

Continue Hiroshima-Honolulu Flight,” FBIS, July 18,

1996.

192 U.S. Department of Transportation, “U.S.,

Japan Aviation Talks End Without Agreement,” press

release No. 186-96, Aug. 16, 1996.

193 “U.S.-Japan ‘Open Skies’ Talks Proposed,”

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 1996, p. A2.

194 For more detail on the peso crisis, see

USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994, USITC

publication 2894, p. 86.

195 Secretary of the Treasury, Report to

Congress, Sept., 1996, p. 8.

196 Mexico also prepaid a portion of the principal

extended by the IMF.

197 For details on Mexico’s “peso crisis,” and

emergency assistance extended to Mexico, see

USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994, USITC

publication 2894, pp. 85-87.

198 “Mexican Anti-NAFTA Drive Takes Shape”, El

Financiero, Jan. 6-12, 1997, p. 1. For details on

U.S. import relief actions affecting Mexican

broomcorn brooms, see chapter 5 of this report; for a

discussion of Mexico’s response, see the NAFTA

section of Ch. 3. For a discussion of developments

on the trucking issue, see the NAFTA section of Ch.

3.

199 “Mexican Anti-NAFTA Drive Takes Shape”, El

Financiero, Jan. 6-12, 1997, p. 3.

200 The Confederacion de Asociaciones

Agricolas del Estado (C.A.A.D.E.S.) and

Confederacion Nacional de Productores de Hortalizas

(C.N.P.H.) signed the agreement on behalf of the

producers and exporters of Mexican tomatoes.

201 For the procedurual history of the Commerce

investigation, Commerce’s notice of suspension of its

investigation, and the text of the suspension

agreement, see 61 F.R. 36618. For the procedural

history of the USITC investigation (inv. No.

731-TA-747) and USITC’s notice suspending its

investigation, see the Federal Register of Nov. 13,

1996 (61 F.R. 58217).

202 See ch. 5 of this report for a brief legal

description.

203 USITC, Fresh Winter Tomatoes, Investigation

No. TA-201-64, USITC publication 2881, p. I-4.

204 H.R. 2795 and S. 1462, introduced in Dec.

1995.

205 “Farm Groups Oppose Tomato TRQ

Proposal,” North American Free Trade and

Investment Reporter, Dec. 22, 1995 and “Mexico,

Canada and U.S. Groups Oppose Safeguards

Legislation,” North American Free Trade &

Investment Reporter, Mar, 5, 1996.

206 Chapter 20 of the NAFTA covers institutional

arrangements and dispute settlement procedures.

207 Embassy of Mexico, Washington, DC, press

release, untitled, Jan. 18, 1996.

208 Investigations filed under section 202 of the

Trade Act of 1974 are commonly referred to as

escape clause investigations.

209 The petition was filed by the Florida Fruit and

Vegetable Association, Orlando, FL; the Florida Bell

Pepper Growers Exchange, Inc., Orlando, FL; the

Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, Tallahassee, Fl;

the Ad Hoc Group of Florida Tomato Growers and

Packers; and individual Florida Bell pepper growers.

Subsequently, several organizations and individual

growers were added as co-petitioners. For a

complete listing of these groups and/or firms, see

Fresh Tomatoes and Bell Peppers, Inv. No.

TA-201-66, USITC Pub. No. 2985, Aug. 1996, p. II-3,

n. 1.

210 Fresh Tomatoes and Bell Peppers, Inv. No.

TA-201-66, USITC Pub. No. 2985, Aug. 1996, p. I-3.

211 Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, Inv. No.

731-TA-747 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 2967, May

1996, p. 1.

212 WTO, “Overview of State-of-play of WTO

Disputes,” WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/dispute/bulletin.htm, Dec. 20, 1996.

213 USITC, “Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico”,

Suspension of Investigation, Nov. 5, 1996.
124

214 The methodology of calculating the reference

price is set out in the Appendix of the agreement.

Reference prices are based on the lowest level of

import prices from Mexico for a recent period in

which there was no price suppression.

215 “Commerce Department and Mexican Tomato

Growers Sign Agreement,” United States Department

of Commerce, United States Department of

Commerce News, Oct. 28, 1996.

216 Press release of the Florida Fruit and

Vegetables Association on Oct. 11, 1996, immediately

after Commerce announced the accord.

217 61 F.R. 56808.

218 U.S. economic and trade sanctions, including

the embargo on yellowfin tuna from Mexico, are

discussed in more detail in ch. 6.

219 For more detail, see the discussion of the

fund embargo in Ch. 6 and USITC, Operation of the

Trade Agreements Program, 1990, USITC publication

2403, p. 136, and USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP,

1991, USITC publication 2554, p. 118.

220 The 1972 MMPA requires the U.S.

Government to embargo imports of tuna products

caught by foreign fishing boats that do not meet the

standard set under the act in protecting dolphins

caught in tuna fishing.

221 The GATT panel suggested that countries

should advance environmental improvements by

seeking amendments to pertinent GATT rules or

waivers from certain GATT obligations, not by

imposing unilateral trade sanctions against perceived

environmental offenders.

222 For more detail, see USITC, Operation of the

Trade Agreements Program, 1990, USITC publication

2403, p. 136, USITC, and The Year in Trade: OTAP,

1991, USITC publication 2554, p. 38 and p. 118, and

Magda Kornis, “Trade Accords and Environmental

Considerations: The Case of Mexican Tuna,”

International Economic Review, USITC, Nov. 1991.

223 See also Ted Wilson, “Trade Issues of the

1990s—Part I” International Economic Review,

USITC, Nov. 1994, p. 20.

224 USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994,

USITC publication 2894, p. 16.

225 The bill is also called the “International

Dolphin Conservation Program Act.”

226 The Panama Declaration of Oct. 1995—an

international agreement to protect dolphins and

conserve fishery resources in the Eastern Tropical

Pacific Ocean—was endorsed by the United States.

The agreement would create binding measures to be

followed by fishing vessels in the Eastern Tropical

Pacific, including observer requirements, measures to

minimize bycatch, and measures to protect specific

stocks of dolphin.

227 Testimony at congressional hearings of David

A, Colson, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Bureau

for Oceans and International Environmental and

Scientific Affairs at the Commerce Department, in

which he urges the rapid passage of both bills and

conformity with the standards set in the

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

228 U.S. Department of State telegrams “Invitation

to IATTC Intergovernmental Meeting,” message

reference No. 13100, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Mexico City, Nov. 15, 1996, and Fisheries: Mexico

Suspends Participation in La Jolla Agreement,”

message reference No. 13516, prepared by U.S.

Embassy, Mexico City, Nov. 23, 1996.

229 U.S. Department of State telegrams “Invitation

to IATTC Intergovernmental Meeting,” message

reference No. 13100, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Mexico City, Nov. 15, 1996, and Fisheries: Mexico

Suspends Participation in La Jolla Agreement,”

message reference No. 13516, prepared by U.S.

Embassy, Mexico City, Nov. 23, 1996.

230 For information on the commitments China

made in the 1992 bilateral IPR agreement and the

steps it took to meet them, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1992, USITC publication 2640, pp.

67-68, USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1993,

USITC publication 2769, pp. 104-5, USITC, The Year

in Trade: OTAP, 1994, USITC publication 2894, pp.

96-97, and USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1995,

USITC publication 2971, pp. 57-59.

231 For a chronology of the 301 case, see table

5-1. USTR, “USTR Announces Special 301

Decision,” press release 94-38, June 30, 1994. The

Special 301 provisions were added to the section

301 authority of the 1974 Trade Act by the Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.

232 60 F.R. 1829-30.

233 USTR, “USTR Mickey Kantor Orders 100

Percent Tariffs on More Than $1 billion of Chinese

Imports Cites China’s Failure to Protect U.S.

Intellectual Property,” press release 95-08, Feb. 4,

1995, and 60 F.R. 7230-31.

234 USTR, “United States and China Reach

Accord on Protection of Intellectual Property Rights,

Market Access,” press release 95-12, Feb. 26, 1995,

and 60 F.R. 12582-83.

235 “Trade in a New Era: Opportunities and

Obstacles,” Statement of Ambassador Charlene

Barshefsky, Nov. 13, 1995, Hong Kong found at web

site http://www.ustr.gov/speeches/barshefsky_1.html,

Mar. 21, 1996.

236 Michael Kantor, testimony before the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on East

Asian and Pacific Affairs and the House International

Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Asia and the

Pacific and International Economic Policy and Trade,

Mar. 7, 1996, found at web site

http://www.ustr.gov/testimony/kantor_3.html, Mar. 21,

1996.

237 “Statement from China’s Ministry of Foreign

Trade and Economic Cooperation Concerning Trade

Sanctions on U.S. Goods, issued May 15, 1996,”

reprinted in Bureau of National Affairs, International

Trade Reporter, May 22, 1996, pp. 857-858.

238 USTR, “Statement by Ambassador

Barshefsky,” press release 96-53, June 17, 1996,

found at web site

http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1996/06/96-53.html, June

20, 1996, and USTR, “Chinese Implementation of the

1995 Enforcement Agreement,” fact sheet

accompanying press release 96-50, June 17, 1996,

found at

http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1996/06/96-53.fact.html.
125

239 61 F.R. 29455.

240 Library of Congress, CRS,

Most-Favored-Nation Status of the People’s Republic

of China, CRS Issue Brief IB92094, Updated June

28, 1996, pp. 1, 4.

241 For more information about MFN renewal in

1993 and 1994, see USITC, The Year in Trade:

OTAP, 1993, USITC publication 2769, pp. 101-102,

and USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994, USITC

publication 2894, pp. 97-98.

242 President Clinton, White House press

conference, Washington, DC, May 26, 1994,

LEGI-SLATE, Federal Information Systems Corp., No.

1073290.

243 Library of Congress, CRS, China-U.S. Trade

Issues, CRS Issue Brief IB91121, Updated November

27, 1996.

244 USTR, “China Sanctioned with Triple Charges

on Textile Transshipments,” press release 96-69,

Sept. 6, 1996. Other sanctions were imposed in July

1994 and May 1995, amounting to about $61 million

in charges against China’s quota allowances in 1994

and 1995. See 59 F.R. 35323-4 and 60 F.R.

21792-3.

245 61 F.R. 47892-3 and Commerce Department

official, telephone conversation with USITC staff, Dec.

30, 1996.

246 USTR, “China Sanctioned with Triple Charges

on Textile Transshipments,” press release 96-69,

Sept. 6, 1996.

247 Ibid.

248 Joint Announcement by the China Ministry of

Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation and China

General Administration of Customs, Nov. 10, 1996,

unofficial translation reported in U.S. Department of

State telegram, No. 043977, “Temporary Suspension

of Chinese Imports of U.S. Agricultural Products,”

prepared by U.S. Embassy, Beijing, Nov. 22, 1996.

249 USTR, “U.S.-China Textiles Agreement

Extended to January 31, 1997,” press release

96-100, Dec. 23, 1996. For additional information,

see the discussion on textile and apparel

developments in ch. 5.

250 U.S. Department of State telegram, No.

045970, “China/Textiles: China Delays Retaliation by

30 Days; San Francisco for Dec. 19-21 Negotiations,”

prepared by U.S. Embassy, Beijing, Dec. 9, 1996.

251 USTR, “U.S.-China Textiles Agreement

Extended to January 31, 1997,” press release

96-100, Dec. 23, 1996. On Jan. 9, 1997, China

delayed its threatened retaliation to the end of the

month. U.S. Department of State telegram, No.

001457, “China/Textiles: Chinese Retaliation Threat

Postponed; Visa Letter, Hotel Rooms for U.S.

Delegation,” prepared by U.S. Embassy Beijing, Jan.

13, 1997. Negotiations continued in Beijing starting

Jan. 28, 1997. U.S. Department of State telegram,

No. 008668, “Textiles/China,” prepared by U.S.

Department of State, Washington, DC, Jan. 15, 1997.

On Feb. 2, 1997, the United States and China

reached agreement on a four-year textile pact that

generally extended current quota arrangements in

Chinese textiles and apparel exports to the United

States, but reduced quotas in areas of repeated

transshipment violations. The new agreement

contains strong provisions on market access in China

for U.S. textile producers, unlike previous

agreements. USTR, “U.S. and China Reach

Four-Year Textile Trade Agreement—U.S. Gains

Market Access in China and Targets Areas of

Transshipment Violations for Cutbacks,” press release

97-07, Feb. 2, 1997.

252 For more information on China’s efforts to

become a member of the GATT/WTO, see USITC,

The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1993, USITC publication

2769, pp. 106-7 and USITC, The Year in Trade:

OTAP, 1994, USITC publication 2894, pp. 94-96.

253 Charlene Barshefsky, testimony before the

House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee

on Trade, Sept. 19, 1996, handout.

254 U.S. Department of State telegram, No.

234652, “China WTO Talking Points,” prepared by

U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, Nov. 13,

1996.

255 For a description of the provisions of the

market access agreement, see USITC, The Year in

Trade: OTAP, 1992, USITC publication 2640, pp.

68-69.

256 Kuo Wangdian, “China Calls Off 367 Tax

Items in Import Control,” China Economic News, vol.

XVI, No. 28, July 24, 1995, p. 2.

257 U.S. Department of State telegram, No.

058215, “China Goes Public on Break Off of IPR

Talks,” prepared by U.S. Embassy, Beijing, Dec.

1994; U.S. Department of State telegram, No.

056994, “China’s GATT/WTO Accession: Press

Coverage Picks Up,” prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Beijing, Dec. 1994; China, Ministry of Foreign Trade

and Economic Cooperation, “The Economic and

Trade Relations Between China and the U.S. in

1994,” Almanac of China’s Foreign Economic

Relations and Trade: 1995, pp. 477-478; and USITC,

The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1994, USITC publication

2894, p. 99.

258 “Explanatory Note on Individual Actions

Announced at the Osaka Meeting by the People’s

Republic of China,” n.d.

259 “Explanatory Note of the Annexes to the Draft

Protocol of China’s Accession to the WTO from the

Chinese Delegation,” July 1996.

260 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan

Passes the Integrated Circuit Layout Protection Law,”

message reference No. 4302, prepared by the

American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, July 20, 1995.

261 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Economic Policy and Trade Practices: Taiwan,”

message reference No. 6483, prepared by the

American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Nov. 15, 1995.

262 USTR, “USTR Announces Two Decisions:

Title VII and Special 301,” Apr. 30, 1996.

263 U.S. Department of State telegram “Status of

Taiwan’s IPR Action Plan: six months later,” message

reference No. 5227, prepared by the American

Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Nov. 6, 1996.

264 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan:

Special 301 out-of-cycle review,” message reference

No. 233701, prepared by the U.S. Department of

State, Washington, DC, Nov. 9, 1996.
126

265 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan’s

Special 301 Review,” message reference No. 61632,

prepared by the U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC, Mar. 27, 1996.

266 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan

Economic Minister Publicly Reiterates the Importance

of IPR Protection,” message reference No. 1758, Apr,

15, 1996.

267 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“September Informal U.S.-Taiwan IPR consultations,”

message reference No. 4618, prepared by the

American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Sept. 26, 1996.

268 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan:

Special 301 out-of-cycle review,” prepared by the

U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, Nov. 9,

1996,

269 USTR, “Acting USTR Barshefsky Announces

Results of Special 301 ‘Out-of-Cycle’ reviews,” Press

Release No. 96-89, Nov. 12, 1996

270 USTR, “Identification of Trade Expansion

Priorities (Super 301) Pursuant to Executive Order

12901,” Oct. 1, 1996.

271 USTR, “Prepared Testimony of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky before the House Ways and

Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade,” Sept.

19, 1996.

272 USTR, “USTR Announces New Trade

Enforcement Actions,” Press Release No. 96-75, Oct.

1, 1996 and U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Import Climate: Regulation for Medical Devices,”

message reference No. 6040, prepared by the

American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Dec. 26, 1996.

273 The WTO superseded the GATT on Jan. 1,

1995. Taiwan applied for membership in 1990 as the

“Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu,

Kinmen, and Matsu” under provisions of article

XXXIII. By electing this application method, Taiwan

sought to deflect political controversy over the

question of sovereignty as China is also applying for

WTO membership. The Republic of China was a

founding member of the GATT in 1946, but left the

organization in 1950 after the People’s Republic of

China was established. Taiwan held GATT observer

status from 1965-71. Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and

Matsu are the four main islands under Taiwan’s

jurisdiction. After accession, Taiwan will formally be

referred to as “Chinese Taipei.”

274 The process of accession to the WTO

includes a series of multilateral and bilateral

negotiations. A WTO accession working party is

open to all members, gathers information about the

applicant’s trade regime, identifies changes that

would make the applicant’s trade rules

WTO-consistent, and negotiates the terms of

accession, including a timetable, for the applicant to

meet those goals. At the same time, interested

WTO members hold bilateral talks with the applicant

on specific market access commitments and

concessions on goods and services. The WTO

Secretariat combines the results of all bilateral talks

into schedules of commitments, one each for goods

and services, which are annexed to a draft protocol

of accession prepared by the working party. For

more details on the WTO accession process, see

U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO Accession:

Mechanics and Dynamics,” message reference no.

122415, prepared by the U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC, June 13, 1996 and WTO

“Accession to the World Trade Organization,

Procedures for Negotiations under Article XII—Note

by the Secretariat,” WT/ACC/1, Mar. 25, 1995.

275 U.S. Department of State, “Taiwan’s Draft

Tobacco and Alcohol Mange Law,” message

reference No. 149, prepared by the American

Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Jan. 10, 1997.

276 USTR, “Prepared Testimony of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky before the House Ways and

Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade,” Sept.

19, 1996.

277 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Title VII

Input for Taiwan,” message reference No. 1271,

prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei,

Mar. 18, 1996.

278 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan’s

Proposed Bid Protest Mechanism as Outlined in the

Draft Procurement Law,” message reference No.

5187, prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan,

Taipei, Nov. 5, 1996 and U.S. Department of State

telegram, “Liberalization of Public Procurement in

Taiwan: Government Procurement Bulletin,” message

reference No. 574, prepared by the American

Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Feb. 5, 1996.

279 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan’s

Ministry of Finance Proposes Tariff Reductions on

1,121 Imports,” message reference No. 4241,

prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei,

Sept. 6, 1996.

280 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan’s

Rice Import Proposal,” message reference No. 1790,

prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei,

Apr. 16, 1996.

281 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan’s

Tobacco and Wine Monopoly Increases Retail Prices

and Profits on Alcohol and Tobacco,” message

reference No. 3786, prepared by the American

Institute in Taiwan, Aug. 13, 1996.

282 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan

Liberalizes Telecommunications,” message reference

No. 312, prepared by the American Institute in

Taiwan, Taipei, Jan. 19, 1996 and U.S. Department

of Commerce, International Trade Administration,

“Taiwan Passes Telecommunications Legislation,”

Market Research Reports, Jan. 1996, National Trade

Data Bank (USDOC).

283 USTR, 1996 National Trade Estimate Report.

284 USTR, “Prepared Testimony of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky Before the House Ways and

Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade,” Sept.

19, 1996.

285 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Letter

from Secretary Brown Could Help Encourage Fair

Competition in Newly Liberalized Taiwan

Telecommunications Market,” message reference No.

408, prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan,

Taipei, Jan. 26, 1996.

286 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Proposed Procedures for Taiwan’s Wireless

Telecommunications Liberalization,” message

reference No. 1415, prepared by the American
127

Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Mar. 25, 1996. See also,

U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan’s Mobile

Communications Business,” message reference No.

1656, prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan,

Taipei, Apr. 9, 1996.

287 USTR, “Statement by Acting USTR

Barshefsky,” Press Release No. 96-64, July 30,

1996.

288 USTR, “Prepared Testimony of Ambassador

Charlene Barshefsky Before the House Ways and

Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade,” Sept.

19, 1996.

289 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Regulation of, Approvals for Foreign Insurance

Companies in Taiwan,” message reference No. 1890,

prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei,

Apr. 22, 1996.

290 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Taiwan’s

1996 Financial Liberalization,” message reference No.

103, prepared by the American Institute in Taiwan,

Taipei, Jan. 8, 1997.

291 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Greater

Latitude for Offshore Transactions: Taiwan wants to

Expand Scope of Business for ‘Offshore Banking

Units,’” message reference No. 6018, prepared by

the American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei, Dec. 23,

1996.

292 See, for example, USITC, The Year in Trade,

OTAP, 1995, USITC publication 2971, p. 62.

293 For a discussion of the 1992 agreement, see

USITC, The Year in Trade: OTAP, 1992, USITC

publication 2554, p. 123.

294 USTR, “Korea Identified as a ‘Priority Foreign

Country’ under section 1374 of the 1988 Trade Act

for telecommunications Practices,” Press Release No.

96-63, July 26, 1996.

295 USTR, “Identification of Trade Expansion

Priorities (Super 301) Pursuant to Executive Order

12901,” Oct. 1, 1996.

296 USTR, “Korea Identified as a ‘Priority Foreign

Country’ under Section 1374 of the 1988 Trade Act

for Telecommunications Practices,” Press Release

No. 96-63, July 26, 1996.

297 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“U.S.-ROKG Telecom Market Access Talks,” message

reference No. 239689, prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Washington, DC, Nov. 19, 1996.

298 USTR, “USTR-Commerce Joint Press

Release on the Implementation of the 1995

Agreement with Korea on Autos,” Press Release No.

96-44a, June 3, 1996.

299 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Comments for October 22 TAG Meeting,” message

reference No. 219928, prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Oct. 22, 1996.

300 For more details on the 1995 automobile

MOU, see USITC, The Year in Trade, OTAP, 1995,

USITC publication 2971, p. 63-64.

301 USTR, “USTR Kantor Announces Agreement

with Korea on Autos,” Press Release No. 95-73,

Sept. 28, 1995.

302 USTR, “USTR-Commerce Joint Press

Release on the Implementation of the 1995

Agreement with Korea on Autos,” Press Release No.

96-44a, June 3, 1996.

303 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Comments for October 22 TAG Meeting,” message

reference No. 219928, prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Oct. 22, 1996.

304 For more details on the 1995 beef and pork

agreement, see USITC, The Year in Trade, OTAP,

1995, USITC publication 2971, p. 62-63.

305 USTR, “USTR Monitors Korean Shelf-Life

Agreement,” Press Release No. 96-8, Jan. 22, 1996.

306 USTR, “Identification of Trade Expansion

Priorities (Super 301) Pursuant to Executive Order

12901,” Oct. 1, 1996.

307 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Consultation Request Concerning Korean

Requirements for Importation of Agricultural

Products,” message reference No. 111690, prepared

by U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, May

31, 1996.

308 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

SPS Committee,” message reference No. 108523,

prepared by U.S. Department of State, Washington,

DC, May 25, 1996.

309 U.S. Department of State, “Draft 1997

National Trade Estimate for Korea,” message

reference No. 259863, prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Washington, DC, Dec. 21, 1996.

310 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

SPS Committee Meeting, May 29-30, 1996,”

message reference No. 4250, prepared by U.S.

Mission to the United Nations, Geneva, June 12,

1996.

311 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Revisions to the Plant Quarantine Act,” message

reference No. 7528, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Seoul, Korea, Dec. 27, 1996.

312 For a summary of the “New Economy” plan,

see Korea Economic Institute, Okyu Kwon, “Financial

Liberalization and the Environment for U.S.

Investment,” in Korea’s Economy, 1994, vol. 10, pp.

12-23.

313 Ministry of Finance and Economy, Korea

Development Institute, “Korea Was Invited to Join

OECD,” Republic of Korea Economic Bulletin, vo. 18,

No. 10, October 1996, pp. 3-4.

314 For a discussion of 1996 developments in the

GPA, see ch. 2.

315 U.S. Department of State, “Draft 1997

National Trade Estimate for Korea,” message

reference No. 259863, prepared by U.S. Department

of State, Washington, DC, Dec. 21, 1996.
128
129

CHAPTER 5

Administration of U.S. Trade

Laws and Regulations

This chapter surveys activities related to the

administration of U.S. trade laws during 1996. It

covers (1) the import-relief laws, (2) the unfair trade

laws, and (3) certain other trade provisions, including

the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA),

the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), section 232

of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (impairment of

national security), the Agricultural Adjustment Act

(interference with programs of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture), and programs affecting textile and

apparel imports.

Import Relief Laws

The United States has enacted several safeguard

laws as well as a trade adjustment assistance program.

The U.S. global action safeguard law, which is based

on article XIX of GATT 1994 and the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Safeguards, is set forth in sections

201-204 of the Trade Act of 1974.1 U.S. bilateral

action safeguard laws are set forth in section 406 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (market disruption from imports

from Communist countries)2 and sections 301-304 of

the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Implementation Act.3 The trade adjustment assistance

provisions are set forth in sections 221 et seq. of the

Trade Act of 1974.4

Safeguard Actions

The U.S. International Trade Commission

(Commission) conducted three safeguard

investigations during 1996, two under the global action

safeguard law5 and one under the NAFTA bilateral

action safeguard law.6 The two global safeguard

investigations concerned imports of broom corn

brooms and fresh tomatoes and bell peppers, and the

NAFTA safeguard investigation concerned imports of

broom corn brooms from Mexico. The Commission

made affirmative injury determinations in the two

brooms investigations and made a negative

determination in the tomatoes/peppers investigation.

In November 1996, the President imposed relief in the

form of higher tariffs on imports of broom corn

brooms. There were no investigations in progress at

yearend 1996.

The two brooms investigations were conducted on

the basis of petitions filed with the Commission on

March 4, 1996, by the U.S. Cornbroom Task Force.

The investigations were conducted jointly. In its

petition filed under the NAFTA safeguard law, the

Task Force also asserted that critical circumstances

exist and sought provisional relief pending completion

of a full investigation. On April 29, 1996, the

Commission, by a vote of 3-3, made a negative critical

circumstances determination. The Commission made

affirmative injury determinations in the full

investigations on July 2, and transmitted its report,

which included the remedy recommendations of

individual Commissioners, to the President on August

1.7 At the request of Mexico, the two countries

conducted bilateral consultations on August 21, 1996.8

On August 30, the President announced that he would

not take action under the NAFTA bilateral safeguard

law, but that he was directing USTR to negotiate and

conclude, within 90 days, under the global safeguard

law, agreements concerning broom corn brooms

exported to the United States.9 Efforts to negotiate

such agreements were unsuccessful. On November 28,

1996, the President announced that he was imposing

higher rates of duty on imports of broom corn brooms

for a 3-year period, to be phased down annually during

the relief period. Excluded from the relief were

imports from Canada, Israel, and developing countries

that account for less than 3 percent of U.S. imports.10

The third investigation was conducted on the basis

of a petition filed by the Florida Fruit & Vegetable

Association, et al., on March 11, 1996, under the global

safeguard law. The Commission made a negative

injury determination on July 2, and reported the results

of its investigation to the President in early August.11
130

Adjustment Assistance

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program,

set forth in sections 221 et seq. of the Trade Act of

1974, authorizes the Secretaries of Commerce and

Labor to provide trade adjustment assistance to firms

and workers, respectively, that are adversely affected

by increased imports. Initially authorized under the

Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the current program is

scheduled to expire on September 30, 1998. In 1993, a

new subchapter was added to the TAA provisions in

the Trade Act to provide transitional assistance to

workers separated or threatened to be separated from

their employment as a result of increased imports from

Canada or Mexico under the NAFTA.12

The TAA system of readjustment allowances to

individual workers is administered by the U.S.

Department of Labor through its Employment and

Training Administration (ETA) in the form of

monetary benefits for direct trade readjustment

allowances and service benefits that include allocations

for job search, relocation, and training. Industry-wide

technical consultation provided through Commercesponsored programs is designed to restore the

economic viability of U.S. industries adversely

affected by international import competition.13

Assistance to Workers

The Department of Labor instituted 1,629

investigations during fiscal year (FY) 1996 (October 1,

1995, through September 30, 1996) on the basis of

petitions filed for trade adjustment assistance. This

figure represents an increase from the 1,501 petitions

instituted in FY 1995.

The number of completed and partial certifications

in FY 1996 decreased to 1,089 from 1,196 in FY 1995.

Figures for FY 1996 indicate that Labor expenditures

for direct Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA) to

certified workers increased to $157.3 million, a 2.6

percent increase from the $153.3 million expenditure

in FY 1995. The results of the investigations completed

or terminated in FY 1996, including those in process

from the previous fiscal year, are shown in the

following tabulation.14

Number of Estimated

investigations number of

Item or petitions workers

Completed certifications 1,086 115,561

Partial certifications 3 465 . . . . 

Petitions denied 423 60,102 . . . . . . . 

Petitions terminated or 

withdrawn 76 3,575 . . . . . . . . . . 

 Total 1,588 179,703 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

In addition, Labor provided training, job search,

and relocation services valued at a $96.6 million in FY

1996, representing a 1.2-percent decrease from the

$97.8 million allocated during FY 1995. As shown in

the following tabulation, data for FY 1996 indicate that

33,410 workers used available service benefits,

representing an increase of 11.7 percent from the

29,914 workers receiving such services in the previous

fiscal year.15

Estimated number of

Item participants in FY 1996

Training 32,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Job search 650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Relocation allowances 760 . . . . . 

 Total 33,410 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

NAFTA-Related Assistance to

Workers

As stated above, the NAFTA Implementation Act

provides for the establishment of a Transitional

Adjustment Assistance program. The program, which

began operation January 1, 1994, provides job search,

training, and relocation assistance to workers in

companies affected by imports from Canada or Mexico

or by shifts of U.S. production to those countries. Data

for FY 1996 from the Department of Labor indicate

that 714 petitions were filed for assistance under the

program, compared with 410 such filings in FY 1995.

Petition activity under the program in FY 1996 is

summarized in the following tabulation:

Number of

investigations

Item or petitions

Petitions filed 714 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Worker groups certified 399 . . . . . . . . . . 

Petitions denied 251 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Petitions terminated 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . 
131

The number of completed certifications in FY 1996

was 399, covering approximately 46,652 workers. FY

1996 figures indicated that Labor expenditures for

direct TRA to certified workers were $10.7 million.16

The Department of Labor also provided training, job

search, and relocation services that decreased from

$21.4 million in FY 1995 to $19.2 million in FY 1996.

Data for FY 1996 indicated that 2,388 workers used

available service benefits, as shown in the following

tabulation:

Estimated

number Cost

Item of participants (dollars)

Training 2,300 $5,957,139 . . . . . . . . . . . 

Job search 12 3,444 . . . . . . . . 

Relocations 76 72,939 . . . . . . . . 

Total 2,388 $6,033,522 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Assistance to Firms and

Industries

Through its Trade Adjustment Assistance Division

(TAAD) the U.S. Department of Commerce’s

Economic Development Administration (EDA)

certified 148 firms as eligible to apply for trade

adjustment assistance during FY 1996. This figure

represents an increase from the 137 firms certified in

the previous fiscal year. The TAAD administers its

firm assistance programs through a nationwide

network of 12 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers

(TAACs). Technical services are provided to certified

firms through TAAC staffs and independent

consultants under direct contract with TAACs.

TAAC’s funding for technical services to firms

adversely affected by international import competition

decreased from $9.95 million during FY 1995 to $8.5

million during FY 1996.

In addition to trade adjustment assistance for firms,

Commerce provided $700,000 to the TAACs to

continue the defense conversion demonstration begun

in FY 1994. Research and development projects on

gears by the Gear Research Institute continued in FY

1996.

Laws Against Unfair

Trade Practices

The U.S. Department of Commerce issued 8 new

antidumping orders during 1996, following completion

of investigations by Commerce and the Commission.

In addition, Commerce issued two new countervailing

duty orders, following completion of investigations by

Commerce and the Commission. During 1996, the

Commission completed 12 investigations under section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 involving allegations of

patent, trademark, or copyright infringement or other

unfair methods of competition. In one of the section

337 investigations, the Commission issued general

exclusion orders prohibiting the importation of

merchandise, and in three other section 337

investigations the Commission issued temporary

limited exclusion orders barring importation of accused

products during the course of the respective

investigations.

Section 301 Investigations

In 1996, USTR initiated nine new section 301

investigations. Further developments occurred in nine

investigations initiated prior to 1996. Table 5-1

summarizes USTR activities on section 301

investigations during 1996.17

Antidumping Investigations

The present antidumping law is contained in title

VII of the Tariff Act of 1930.18 The antidumping law

provides relief in the form of special additional duties

that are intended to offset margins of dumping.

Antidumping duties are imposed when (1) Commerce

(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 Commerce and the Commission by

or on behalf of a U.S. industry.

In general, imports are considered to be sold at

LTFV when the United States 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.19 The antidumping duty is designed

to equal the difference between the U.S. price and the

foreign-market value. The duty specified in an

antidumping order reflects the dumping margin found

by Commerce during its period of investigation. This

rate of duty will be applied to subsequent imports if no

request for annual reviews is received by Commerce.
132

Table 5-1

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Petitions filed or investigations self-initiated in 1996:

Docket No. 301-110 Brazilian Practices Regarding Trade and Investment in the Auto Sector, self-initiated

by USTR (Oct. 1996), 90-day delay in request for consultation (Oct. 1996)

On Oct. 11, 1996, USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the Trade

Act of 1974, with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of Brazil

concerning the grant of tariff-reduction benefits contingent on satisfying certain export

performance and domestic content requirements.

On Oct. 11, 1996, USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated (61

F.R. 54485). Brazil agreed to enter into intensive talks with the United States as a result of

consultations held in August, 1996 under WTO dispute settlement procedures. Pending

the outcome of these talks, USTR decided pursuant to section 303(b)(1)(A) of the Trade

Act to delay for up to 90 days requesting the consultations required under section 303(a)

of the Trade Act for the purpose of ensuring an adequate basis for such consultations.

Docket No. 301-109 Indonesian Practices Regarding Promotion of Motor Vehicle Sector, self-initiated by

USTR (Oct. 1996), consultation requested with the Government of Indonesia (Oct.

1996)

On Oct. 8, 1996, the USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the

Trade Act with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of

Indonesia concerning the grant of conditional tax and tariff benefits intended to develop a

motor vehicle sector in Indonesia.

On Oct. 8, 1996, the USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated (61

F.R. 54247) and requested consultation with the Government of Indonesia pursuant to

Article 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, Article 8 of TRIMs Agreement,

Articles 7 and 30 of the SCM Agreement, and Article 64 of the TRIPs Agreement.

Docket No. 301-108 Argentine Specific Duties and Non-Tariff Barriers Affecting Apparel, Textiles,

Footwear, self-initiated by USTR (Oct. 1996), consultations were requested with the

Government of Argentina (Oct. 1996)

On Oct. 4, 1996, the USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the

Trade Act with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of

Argentina concerning the imposition of (1) specific duties on apparel, textiles, footwear

and other ad valorem; (2) a discriminatory statistical tax and (3) a burdensome labeling

requirement on apparel, textiles and footwear.

On Oct. 4, 1996, the USTR requested public comment and pursuant to Section 303(a)

requested consultations with the Government of Argentina pursuant to Article 4 of the

Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),

Article XXII:1 GATT, 1994, Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade,

Article 19 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994, and

Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (61 F.R. 53777).

Table continued on next page
133

Table 5-1—Continued

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Petitions filed or investigations self-initiated in 1996—Continued:

Docket No. 301-107 Australian Subsides Affecting Leather, petition filed by the Coalition Against

Australian Leather Subsidies (August 1996), consultations were held with the

Government of Australia (Oct. 1996)

On Aug. 19, 1996, the Coalition Against Australian Leather Subsidies filed a petition

pursuant to section 302(a) of the Trade Act alleging that certain subsidy programs of the

Government of Australia constitute acts, policies and practices that violate, or are

inconsistent with and otherwise deny benefits to the United States under GATT 1994 and

the SCM Agreement.

On Oct. 3, 1996, the USTR initiated an investigation pursuant to section 302(a) to

determine whether certain acts, policies or practices of the Government of Australia

regarding subsidies available to leather under the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Import

Credit Scheme and another subsidies to leather granted or maintained in Australia which

are prohibited under Article 3 of the SCM Agreement are actionable under section 301.

USTR requested public comment, pursuant to Section 303(a) of the Trade Act, requested

consultations with the Government of Australia on Oct. 7, 1996, pursuant to Articles 1 and

4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes

(DSU), Article 4.1 of the SCM Agreement, and Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994 as

incorporated in Article 30 of the SCM Agreement (61 F.R. 5064). Consultations were held

on Oct. 31, 1996.

Docket No. 301-106 India’s Practices Regarding Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Agricultural

Chemicals, self-initiated by USTR (July 1996), consultations held with Government

of India (July 1996)

On July 2, 1996, USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the Trade

Act with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of India that may

result in the denial of patents and exclusive marketing rights to U.S. individuals and firms

involved in the development of innovative pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical

products.

On July 8, 1996, USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated (61 F.R.

35857) and requested consultation with the Government of India pursuant to Article XXII

of GATT, 1994, and Article 4 of the WTO DSU and Article 64 of the TRIPs Agreement.

Consultations were held July 27, 1996.

Docket No. 301-105 Turkey’s Practices Regarding the Imposition of a Discriminatory Tax on Box Office

Revenues, self-initiated by USTR (June 1996), consultations held with Government

of Turkey (July 1996)

On June 12, 1996, USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the

Trade act with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of Turkey

that may result in the discriminatory treatment of U.S. films in Turkey.

On June 17, 1996, USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated (61

F.R. 32883) and requested consultations with the Government of Turkey pursuant to

Article XXII of GATT, 1994, and Article 4 of the WTO DSU. Consultations were held July

25, 1996.

Table continued on next page
134

Table 5-1—Continued

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Petitions filed or investigations self-initiated in 1996—Continued:

Docket No. 301-104 Pakistan’s Practices Regarding Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and

Agricultural Chemicals, self-initiated by USTR (April 1996), U.S. requested

establishment of dispute settlement panel (July 1996)

 On April 30, 1996 USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the Trade

act with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of Pakistan that

may result in the denial of patents and exclusive marketing rights to U.S. individuals and

firms involved in the development of innovative pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals

products.

On May 3, 1996, USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated (61 F.R.

19971) and requested consultations with the Government of Pakistan pursuant to Article

XXII of GATT, 1994, and Article 4 of the WTO DSU. Consultations were held on May 30,

1996. On July 4, 1996 the U.S. requested establishment of a Panel.

Docket No. 301-103 Portugal’s Practices Regarding Term of Patent Protection, self-initiated by USTR

(April 1996), investigation terminated (Oct. 1996) following Portugal issuance of

Decree-Law 141/96

On April 30, 1996, USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the

Trade Act with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of

Portugal relating to the term of existing patents.

On May 3, 1996, USTR requested public comment on the acts, policies and practices of

Portugal being investigated (61 F.R. 19971) and requested consultations with the

Government of Portugal pursuant to Article XXII of GATT, 1994, and Article 4 of the WTO

DSU.

On May 30, 1996, the United States and Portugal held formal consultations. On August

23, 1996, Portugal issued Decree-Law 141/96 to implement properly its patent term

related obligations under the TRIPs agreement. Having reached a satisfactory resolution

of the issues under investigation, the USTR terminated the investigation on Oct. 21, 1996,

and will monitor implementation of the agreement under section 306 of the Trade Act.

Docket No. 301-102 Canadian Practices Affecting Periodicals, self-initiated by USTR (March 1996), first

dispute settlement panel meeting (Oct. 1996)

On March 11, 1996, the USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the

Trade Act with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of Canada

that restrict or prohibit imports of certain periodicals into Canada and apply discriminatory

treatment to certain imported periodicals. On March 11, 1996, the USTR requested public

comment and requested consultations with the Government of Canada pursuant to Article

XXII of GATT, 1994, and Article 4 of the WTO DSU (61 F.R. 11067).

The panel was established on June 19, 1996 and its first meeting took place on Oct. 11,

1996.

Other investigations acted upon in 1996:

Docket No. 301-101 EU Enlargement, self-initiated by USTR (Oct. 1995), investigation terminated

following agreement with EU (Oct. 1996)

On Oct. 24, 1995, USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1) of the Trade

Act with respect to the denial of benefits under a trade agreement by the European Union

arising from the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.

Table continued on next page
135

Table 5-1—Continued

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Other investigations acted upon in 1996—Continued:

On Oct. 24, 1995, USTR requested public comment and a public hearing was held on

Nov. 21, 1995, on a proposed determination (60 F.R. 55076). On Dec. 22, 1995, the

European Union Council approved the U.S.-E.U. Agreements on EU Enlargement and

Grains which provides full compensation to the United States for tariff increases that

occurred when the three countries acceded to the EU.

Effective Oct. 21, 1996, having reached an agreement that provided a satisfactory

resolution of the issues under investigation, the USTR decided to terminate this

investigation and to monitor EU implementation pursuant to section 306 of the Trade Act.

Docket No. 301-100 European Community Banana Import Regime, self-initiated by USTR, second

meeting of dispute settlement panel (Oct. 1996)

Pursuant to section 302(b)(1) of the Trade Act, the USTR self-initiated a new investigation

concerning the European Union’s (EU) acts, policies and practices relating to the

importation, sale and distribution of bananas.

On Oct. 4, 1995, USTR invited public comment on the acts, policies and practices of the

EU and pursuant to section 303(a) of the Trade Act, requested consultations with the EU

pursuant to the WTO’s Understanding on Rules and Procedures Concerning the

Settlement of Disputes (DSU) (60 F.R. 52027). On May 8, 1996, the Dispute Settlement

Body (DSB) of the WTO established a panel in response to the April 11, 1996, panel

request filed jointly and severally by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and the

United States. The first panel meeting took place on Sept. 10-12 and the second panel

meeting took place on Oct. 16-17.

Docket No. 301-99 Barriers to Access to the Japanese Market for Consumer Photographic Film and

Paper, petition filed by the Eastman Kodak Company (May 1995), dispute settlement

panel established (Oct. 1996)

On May 18, 1995, the Eastman Kodak Company filed a petition pursuant to section 302(a)

of the Trade Act alleging that certain acts, policies and practices of Japan deny access to

the market for photographic film and paper in Japan and are unjustifiable, unreasonable

and discriminatory and actionable under section 301. On July 2, 1995, the USTR initiated

an investigation with respect to barriers to access to the Japanese market for consumer

photographic film and paper. USTR invited public comment on the matters being

investigated and the determinations to be made under section 304 of the Trade Act and

requested consultations with the Government of Japan (60 F.R. 35447).

On June 13, 1996, the USTR determined, pursuant to section 304(a)(1)(A) of the Trade

Act, that certain acts, policies, and practices of the Government of Japan with respect to

the sale and distribution of consumer photographic materials in Japan are unreasonable

and burden orrestrict U.S. commerce and that these acts should be addressed by: (1)

seeking recourse to the dispute settlement procedures of the WTO to challenge Japanese

Government liberalization countermeasures; (2)(a) requesting consultations with the

Government of Japan under the WTO provision for consultations on restrictive business

practices; (b)(i) requesting that Kodak provide information for submission to the Japan Fair

Trade Commission (JFTC) concerning anticompetitive practices in this sector,(ii) providing

information to the JFTC, (c) seeking to cooperate with the JFTC in its review of evidence

of anticompetitive practices, and (d) studying the extent to which Japan’s market structure

for consumer photographic materials distorts competition in the U.S. and third markets. At

the appropriate time, based on developments in these consultations and proceedings, the

USTR will determine what further action needs to be taken to ensure that the barriers are

eliminated (61 F.R. 30929).

Table continued on next page
136

Table 5-1—Continued

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Other investigations acted upon in 1996—Continued:

Docket No. 301-99 Continued.

On July 11, 1996, consultations took place and on Sept. 20, 1996, the United States

requested a panel, and the DSB established the panel on October 16, 1996. Pursuant to

section 127(b)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)(19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)),

USTR is providing notice that a dispute settlement panel convened under the Agreement

Establishing theWTO at the request of the United States will examine Japanese

government measures affecting the distribution and sale of imported consumer

photographic paper. USTR also invited public comments from the public concerning the

issues raised in the dispute.

Docket No. 301-98 Canadian Communications Practices, petition filed by Country Music Television

(Dec. 1994), agreement signed between Country Music Television and New Country

Network to form a single Canadian country music network (March 1996)

On Dec. 23, 1994, Country Music Television (CMT), filed a petition pursuant to section

302(a) of the Trade Act alleging that acts, policies and practices of the Canadian

Government regarding the authorization for distribution via cable carriage of U.S.-owned

programming services are unreasonable and discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S.

commerce.

On Feb. 6, 1995, USTR initiated an investigation, invited public comment on the matters

being investigated and requested consultations with the Government of Canada (60 F.R.

8101). USTR also requested public comment concerning a proposed determination that

certain acts, policies and practices of Canada with respect to the granting or termination of

authorizations for U.S.-owned programming services to be distributed in Canada via cable

carriage are unreasonable or discriminatory and constitute a burden or restriction on U.S.

commerce.

On Feb. 6, 1996, USTR determined pursuant to section 304(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act

that certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of Canada with respect to the

granting or termination of authorization for U.S.-owned programming services to be

distributed in Canada via cable deny market access for such services and are

unreasonable and discriminatory and constitute a burden or restriction on U.S. commerce.

As negotiations to restore CMT’s access were ongoing and Canada had taken no

subsequent action to terminate the authorizations of other U.S.-owned programming

services, USTR determined pursuant to Section 304(a)(a)(B) that the appropriate action at

that time was to direct the Section 301 Committee to recommend the implementation of

appropriate responsive action pursuant to section 301 should market access not be

restored, and to monitor pursuant to section 306. The section 304 determinations were

made and the investigation was terminated Feb. 6, 1996 (61 F.R. 5603).

On March 7, 1996 USTR announced that CMT and the New Country Network had signed

an agreement to form a single Canadian country music network.

Docket No. 301-97 Costa Rica Exportation of Bananas to the EU, self-initiated by USTR (Jan. 1995),

investigation terminated(Jan. 1996) following commitments made by Costa Rica and

USTR officials directed to implement a process to address remaining burden or

restriction on U.S. commerce

On Jan. 9, 1995, USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1)(A) of the

Trade Act to determine whether, as a result of Costa Rica’s implementation of the

Framework agreement, the policies and practices of Costa Rica regarding the exportation

of bananas to the EU are unreasonable and discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S.

commerce.

Table continued on next page
137

Table 5-1—Continued

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Other investigations acted upon in 1996—Continued:

Docket No. 301-97 Continued.

On Jan. 9, 1995, USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated and

requested consultation with the Government of Costa Rica (60 F.R. 3284-85). On Jan. 10,

1996, USTR determined that the practices under investigation were unreasonable or

discriminatory and burdened or restricted U.S. commerce, and that, because Costa Rica

has not fully addressed all the acts policies, and practices found actionable pursuant to

section 301 (b)(1), the appropriate action at this time was to direct USTR officials to

implement a process aimed at addressing the remaining burden or restriction on U.S.

commerce while monitoring, under section 306, Costa Rica’s commitments made on Jan.

6, 1996, during bilateral consultations, and to terminate the investigations.

Docket No. 301-96 Colombia’s Exportation of Bananas to EU, self-initiated by USTR (Jan. 1995), action

terminated(Jan. 1996) following commitments made by Colombia and USTR officials

directed to implement a process to address remaining burden or restriction on U.S.

commerce

On Jan. 9, 1995, USTR self-initiated an investigation under Section 302(b)(1)(A) of the

Trade Act to determine whether, as a result of Colombia’s implementation of the

Framework Agreement, the policies and practices of Colombia regarding the exportation

of bananas to the EU are unreasonable and discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S.

commerce.

On Jan. 9, 1995, USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated and

requested consultations with the Colombia Government (50 F.R. 3283). On Jan. 10, 1996,

USTR determined that the practices under investigation were unreasonable or

discriminatory and burdened or restricted U.S. commerce, and that, because Colombia

has not fully addressed all the acts, policies, and practices found actionable pursuant to

section 301 (b)(1), the appropriate action at this time is to direct USTR officials to

implement a process aimed at addressing the remaining burden or restriction on U.S.

commerce while monitoring, under section 306, Colombia’s commitments made on Jan. 9,

1996, during bilateral consultations, and to terminate the investigation.

Docket No. 301-92 China Intellectual Property Rights, self-initiated by USTR (June 1994), USTR

announces that proposed sanctions would not be imposed, determined to revoke

China’s designation as a “Priority Foreign Country,” and terminated the limitation

on textile and apparel imports to prevent import surges (June 1996)

On June 30, 1994, USTR invited public comment on the matters being investigated and

requested consultations with the Chinese government (59 F.R. 35558).

On Dec. 31, 1994, USTR determined that as complex or complicated issues were involved

in the investigation, requiring additional time, the investigation should be extended to Feb.

4, 1995 (60 F.R. 1829). On the same date, USTR also requested public comment on

proposed determinations on the actionability under section 301 of the practices under

investigations and on appropriate action under section 301 in response to them. A public

hearing was held on January 24-25 to hear views on the proposed action. On Feb. 4,

1995, USTR determined pursuant to section 304(a) that certain acts, policies and

practices of China with respect to its protection of intellectual property rights and the

provision of market access to persons who rely on intellectual property rights protection

was unreasonable and discriminatory and constituted a burden or restriction on U.S.

commerce. USTR also determined that the appropriate action in response was, pursuant

to section 301 (b) and (c), to increase duties to 100 percent ad valorem on certain

products of China entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after

Table continued on next page
138

Table 5-1—Continued

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Other investigations acted upon in 1996—Continued:

Docket No. 301-92 Continued.

Feb. 26, 1995. As a result of a Feb. 25, 1995, agreement reached between the United

States and China on the protection of intellectual property and related market access

issues, USTR terminated the investigation; announced monitoring of the agreement under

section 306 of the Trade Act; terminated the order to impose sanctions on Chinese

products; and revoked China’s designation as a priority foreign country.

On May 15, 1996, based on monitoring carried out under section 306(a), USTR

considered that China was not satisfactorily implementing the Feb. 25, 1995 agreement. In

light of this, USTR proposed to impose prohibitive tariffs on imports of certain products

from China and requested public comment and announced a public hearing to be held on

June 6 and 7, 1996. Additionally, to prevent surges USTR directed the Commissioner of

Customs to limit by date of export entries of certain textile products, over the next 30-day

period, to 15 percent of the 1996 adjusted level for each category of product. On June 12,

1996, USTR extended the directive for an additional 30-day period commencing on June

14, 1996.

On June 17, 1996, USTR announced that, based on the measures that China has taken

and will take in the future to implement key elements of the 1995 Agreement, the proposed

sanctions would not be imposed. In addition, USTR determined to revoke China’s

designation as a “Priority Foreign Country” under section 182 of the Trade Act. USTR

determined that the limitation on textile and apparel imports to prevent import surges

should be terminated and directed the Commissioner of Customs accordingly. USTR will

continue to monitor China’s implementation of the 1995 Agreement (61 F.R. 33147).

Docket No. 301-87 Canada Softwood Lumber, self-initiated by USTR (Oct. 1991), U.S. and Canada enter

into agreement (effective from April 1996)

On October 4, 1991, the USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 302(b)(1)(A) of

the Trade Act with respect to certain acts, policies, and practices of the Government of

Canada affecting exports to the United States of softwood lumber. On Oct. 4, 1991, USTR

invited public comments on the matters being investigated (56 F.R. 50738). Because

expeditious action was required, USTR made these determinations prior to receiving

public comment in accordance with section 304(b)(1). The Administration announced the

following action: (1) intention to self-initiate a countervailing duty investigation of softwood

lumber imports from Canada (which was in fact initiated on Oct. 31, 1991); and (2) until

preliminary results of that investigation are available, interim customs suspension of

liquidation to prevent disruption of the U.S. lumber market as a consequence of the abrupt

termination of the MOU undertaking.

On March 6, 1992, the Department of Commerce issued an affirmative preliminary

determination in the countervailing duty investigation. Consequently, the bond requirement

imposed by the Section 301 investigation was terminated. Meanwhile, Canada challenged

the initiation of the 301 and countervailing duty investigations before the GATT.

On Oct. 19, 1994, USTR terminated Section 301 action and ordered the Customs service

to cease the extension of liquidation in light of the completion of the binational panel

proceedings under the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (59 F.R. 52846). On May 29,

1996, the United States and Canada entered into an agreement on trade in softwood

lumber, with effect from April 1, 1996. This agreement is intended to provide a satisfactory

resolution to this matter. USTR determined that this agreement will be subject to the

provisions of section 306 of the Trade Act and that USTR will monitor Canadian

compliance with this agreement pursuant to section 306 of the Trade Act and will take

action under section 301(a) if Canada fails to comply with it (61 F.R. 28626).

Table continued on next page
139

Table 5-1—Continued

Summary of activity on sec. 301 investigations during 1996

Docket No. Summary and actions occurring during course of investigation

Other investigations acted upon in 1996—Continued:

Docket No. 301-62 EC Hormones, self-initiated by USTR ( Nov. 1987), increased customs duties

terminated (July 1996) following establishment of WTO dispute settlement panel

On Nov. 25, 1987, the President announced his intention to raise customs duties to a

prohibitive level on as much as $100 million in EC exports to the United States. This

action was in response to the implementation scheduled for Jan. 1, 1988 of the Animal

Hormone Directive. This directive would ban, without valid scientific evidence, imports of

meat produced from animals treated with growth hormones. However, the President said

he would suspend increased duties if EC member states continued to allow such imports

for a 12-month transition period.

On Dec. 24, 1987, on his own motion, the President proclaimed but immediately

suspended increased duties on specified products of the EC (52 F.R. 49131), pending EC

implementation of its Directive. He delegated to USTR authority to modify, suspend or

terminate the increased duties (including terminate the suspension of such increased

duties). The EC implemented its directive on Jan. 1, 1989. In response, USTR terminated

the suspension of the increased duties, effective Jan. 1, 1989, with some modifications (53

F.R. 53115). The United States and the EC agreed on Jan. 12 to allow a grace period for

goods exported, or meat certified for export, prior to Jan. 1, if they entered before Feb. 1

(54 F.R. 3032). On Feb. 18, the US and EC established a task force of high-level

government officials to seek a resolution to the hormones dispute by May 4, 1989. In May,

the task force’s mandate was extended and its work continues.

Effective July 28, 1989, USTR suspended the additional duty on pork hams and shoulders

(54 F.R. 31398), since the EC had enabled non-treated U.S. beef to enter the EC.

Effective Dec. 8, 1989, USTR suspended the application of the increased duty on imports

of certain tomato sauces from the European Community (54 F.R. 50673), and on May 16,

1990, made a technical amendment to the subheadings on tomato sauces (55 F.R.

20376).

On May 20, 1996, based on a request from the United States, the DSB established a

dispute settlement panel to examine whether the Directive is consistent with the EC and

its member states obligations under various WTO Agreements (61 F.R. 33149). As the

United States now had effective multilateral procedures to address the matter of the EC’s

restrictions on imports of U.S. meat under the Directive, USTR on July 12, 1996,

determined that it was in the interest of the United States to terminate, effective July 15,

1996, the increased duties proclaimed in Proclamation No. 5759 and applied pursuant to

the authority delegated to the USTR in Proclamation No. 5759.

Source: U.S. Trade Representative.

If a request is received, Commerce will calculate the

antidumping duties for that year for each entry.

Commerce and the Commission each conduct

preliminary and final antidumping investigations in

making their separate determinations.20 In 1996, the

Commission completed 17 preliminary and 13 final

antidumping injury investigations.21 Antidumping

orders were imposed as a result of affirmative

Commission and Commerce determinations in 8 of the

13 final investigations on products imported from 7

different countries. Details of antidumping actions and

orders, including suspension agreements,22 in effect in

1995, are presented in tables A-22 and A-23. The

following tabulation summarizes the number of

antidumping investigations during 1994-96:23
140

Antidumping duty investigations 1994 1995 1996

Petitions filed 43 14 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Commission determinations:

Negative 3 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Affirmative (includes partial affirmatives) 46 13 17 . . . . Terminated24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Final Commerce determinations:

Negative 2 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Affirmative 33 40 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terminated 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suspended 2 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Commission determinations:

Negative 10 16 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affirmative (includes partial affirmatives) 17 24 8 . . . . Terminated 2 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Source: Compiled by staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Countervailing Duty

Investigations

The United States countervailing duty law is also

set forth in title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. It

provides for the levying of special additional duties to

offset foreign subsidies on products imported into the

United States.25 In general, procedures for such

investigations are similar to those under the

antidumping law. Petitions are filed with Commerce

(the administering authority) and with the Commission.

Before a countervailing duty order can be issued,

Commerce 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.

Two new countervailing duty orders were imposed

in 1996 as a result of investigations involving both

Commerce and the Commission. In 1996, the

Commission completed 1 preliminary and 2 final

injury investigations.26 Details of countervailing duty

actions and outstanding orders, including suspension

agreements27 in effect in 1996, are presented in tables

A-24 and A-25. The following tabulation summarizes

the number of countervailing duty investigations

during 1994-96:28

Countervailing duty investigations 1994 1995 1996

Petitions filed 7 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Preliminary Commission determinations:

Negative 1 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affirmative (includes partial affirmatives) 6 2 1 . . . . Final Commerce determinations:

Negative 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affirmative 1 5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suspended 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Commission determinations:

Negative 0 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affirmative (includes partial affirmatives) 1 3 2 . . . . Terminated 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Source: Compiled by staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission.
141

Reviews of Outstanding

Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders

Section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1675) requires Commerce, if requested, to conduct

annual reviews of outstanding antidumping and

countervailing duty orders to determine the amount of

any net subsidy or dumping margin and to determine

compliance with suspension agreements. Section 751

also authorizes Commerce and the Commission, as

appropriate, to review certain outstanding

determinations and agreements after receiving

information or a petition that shows changed

circumstances. In these circumstances, the party

seeking revocation or modification of an antidumping

or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement

has the burden of persuading Commerce and the

Commission that circumstances have changed

sufficiently to warrant review and revocation. Based

on either of the reviews above, Commerce may revoke

a countervailing duty or antidumping order in whole or

in part or terminate or resume a suspended

investigation. Neither Commerce nor the Commission

instituted a changed circumstances investigation under

section 751 in 1996.

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended

section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to require both

Commerce and the Commission to conduct “sunset”

reviews of outstanding orders 5 years after their

publication to determine whether revocation of an

order would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy

and material injury.29 Special rules apply to the

conduct of sunset reviews of “transition” orders (orders

in effect on January 1, 1995), the date on which the

WTO Agreement entered into force with respect to the

United States). Commerce and the Commission are to

begin conducting reviews of such orders in July 1998,

but no transition order may be revoked as a result of

such a review before January 1, 2000.30

Section 337 Investigations

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(19 U.S.C. 1337), 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 trademark,

registered copyright, or registered mask work, for

which a domestic industry exists or is in the process of

being established.31

If the Commission determines that a violation

exists, it can issue an order excluding the subject

imports from entry into the United States, or can order

the violating parties to cease and desist from engaging

in the unlawful practices.32 The President may

disapprove a Commission order within 60 days of its

issuance for “policy reasons.”

In 1996, as in previous years, most complaints filed

with the Commission under section 337 alleged

infringement of a U.S. patent by imported

merchandise. The Commission completed a total of 12

investigations under section 337 (including one

enforcement proceeding) in 1996, the same number

completed in 1995. As in recent years, the section 337

caseload in 1996 was highlighted by investigations

involving complex technologies, particularly in the

computer area. Significant among these were

computer-related investigations involving various types

of integrated circuit devices and processes for

producing them, computer hard disk drives, fiber optic

modems, electrical connectors for memory modules,

and logic emulation systems used for designing

computer chips. In addition, several section 337

investigations involved other sophisticated

technologies, including patents covering global

positioning systems, rare earth magnets used in

electronic products, chemical adhesives for

repositionable notes, wind turbines for generating

electricity, and diagnostic kits for detecting HIV virus

levels. Two investigations concerned allegations of

trademark infringement and one investigation involved

allegations of copyright infringement. Finally, one

investigation focused, for the first time, on the alleged

infringement of registered mask works.

During 1996, the Commission completed a formal

enforcement proceeding for alleged violations of a

cease and desist order after a settlement between the

private parties, but the Commission referred to the

Department of Justice assertions relating to allegedly

false reports filed with the Commission. The

Commission also began another formal enforcement

proceeding regarding alleged violations of a consent

order issued by the Commission in the section 337

investigation involving rare earth magnets. Finally,

one investigation was remanded to the Commission by

the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit for a further determination regarding violation.

Exclusion orders were issued in four

investigations. One temporary limited exclusion order
142

was also issued. Several investigations were

terminated by the Commission without determining

whether section 337 had been violated. Generally,

these terminations were based on a settlement

agreement or consent order, although two

investigations were terminated based on the

withdrawal of the complaint. At the close of 1996,

there were 13 section 337 investigations pending at the

Commission, including a formal enforcement

proceeding, a remanded investigation, and an ancillary

sanctions proceeding. Commission activities involving

section 337 actions in 1996 are presented in table

A-26.

As of December 31, 1996, a total of 50

outstanding exclusion orders based on violations of

section 337 were in effect. Thirty of these orders

involved unexpired patents. Table A-27 lists the

investigations in which these exclusion orders were

issued.

Other Import

Administration Laws and

Programs

Tariff Preference Programs

Generalized System of Preferences

The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)

program authorizes the President to grant duty-free

access to the U.S. market for certain products that are

imported from designated developing countries and

territories. The program is authorized by Title V of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2461 et

seq.). By offering unilateral tariff preferences, the GSP

program reflects the U.S. commitment to an open

world trading system and to economic growth. The

program has three broad goals: (1) to promote

economic development in developing and transitioning

economies through increased trade, rather than foreign

aid; (2) to reinforce U.S. trade policy objectives by

encouraging beneficiaries to open their markets, to

comply more fully with international trading rules, and

to assume greater responsibility for the international

trading system; and (3) to help maintain U.S.

international competitiveness, by lowering costs for

U.S. business as well as lowering prices for American

consumers.

Countries are designated as “beneficiary

developing countries” under the program by the

President. The President may not designate certain

developed countries and also may not designate

countries that inter alia discriminate against U.S.

goods or do not afford adequate protection to

intellectual property rights or afford internationally

recognized worker rights to their workers.33 The

President also designates the articles that are eligible

for duty-free treatment. The President may not

designate articles that are considered by the United

States to be “import sensitive.” 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.34 The statute also provides for graduation of

countries from the program when they become “high

income” countries, and for removal of eligibility of

articles, or articles from certain countries, under certain

conditions. Each year, the Trade Policy Staff

Committee (TPSC) conducts a review process in which

products can be added to or removed from the GSP

program, or in which a beneficiary’s compliance with

the eligibility requirements can be reviewed.

In July 1995, the TPSC began the annual GSP

review for 1995, but suspended it when the program

expired. In August 1996, the TPSC requested the

Commission to provide advice concerning possible

modifications to the GSP for a modified list of the

articles announced in the TPSC 1995 Annual GSP

Review Federal Register notice. In October 1996, the

TPSC announced its timetable for the 1995 Annual

GSP Review, modifications in the list of articles for the

review, the initiation of reviews of countries’ practices

to determine whether the countries afford adequate

intellectual property rights protection, the satisfactory

completion of two country practice reviews, and the

decision to not solicit petitions or initiate a 1996

Annual GSP Review. Further, in September 1996, the

TPSC requested the Commission’s advice on the

possible GSP designation of certain articles (in 1,895

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS) subheadings that are products only of countries

designated as least-developed beneficiary developing

countries. And, in December 1996, the TPSC

announced the initiation of a 1997 Out-of-Cycle

Country Eligibility Review inviting petitions

concerning country practices under the GSP program.

The GSP program expired on July 31, 1995, and

was extended retroactively through May 31, 1997, by

legislation (Public Law 104-188) signed by the

President on August 20, 1996. The 1996 legislation

amended the statutory provisions that authorize the

GSP program in several ways. Specifically, it—

 Deleted the prohibition on designating as a

GSP beneficiary member countries of the
143

Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries;

 Changed the basis of the per capita gross

national product threshold for the

mandatory graduation of a country from

the program from the old basis, exceeding

the “applicable limit” calculated under a

formula set forth in the Trade Act of 1974,

to a Presidential determination that the

country has become a “high income”

country, as defined by the official statistics

of the World Bank;

 Authorized the President to designate

additional articles as eligible for duty-free

treatment if they are products of a

least-developed beneficiary developing

country;

 Prohibited consideration of an article as

eligible for designation for 3 years, if such

article has been formally considered for

designation under GSP but is denied such

designation;

 Lowered one of the statutory ceilings of the

program—the so-called “competitive

need” limits—on imports of an eligible

article from a beneficiary country, by

changing the dollar-value limit from a

floating figure derived from a formula to a

set, indexed figure;35

 Deleted the lower statutory ceilings

applicable to imports of any eligible article

from a beneficiary country that had

demonstrated a sufficient degree of

competitiveness (relative to other

beneficiary developing countries) with

respect to that article;

 Changed the date for determining whether

an eligible article is not produced in the

United States from January 3, 1985, to

January 1, 1995; and

 Changed the de minimis value (a threshold

for waiving certain GSP limits that is based

on total U.S. imports of an article) from a

floating level based on a formula to a

specified, indexed figure.36

In October 1996, the President proclaimed certain

modifications to the GSP resulting from implementing

changes in the GSP legislation and decisions made

during the expiration of the GSP program. The

modifications provided for (1) the graduation from the

GSP, effective January 1, 1998, of Aruba, the Cayman

Islands, Cyprus, Greenland, Macau and the

Netherlands Antilles as a result of the presidential

determination that these countries meet the definition

of “high income;” (2) the graduation of Malaysia from

GSP, effective January 1, 1997, because Malaysia had

become sufficiently advanced in economic

development and had so improved in trade

competitiveness that continued preferential treatment

under the GSP was not warranted; (3) the suspension

of benefits under the GSP for certain articles imported

from Pakistan because of insufficient progress on

affording workers in that country internationally

recognized worker rights; (4) the addition of Angola,

Ethiopia, Madagascar, Zaire and Zambia to the list of

least-developed beneficiary developing countries and

the deletion of Botswana and Western Samoa from

such list; and (5) the granting of de minimis waivers on

imports for calendar year 1994 and restoration to

preferential treatment of certain eligible articles from

certain beneficiary countries.

There were $16.9 billion in duty-free imports

entered under the GSP program in 1996,37 accounting

for over 13 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP

beneficiaries and 2 percent of total U.S. imports (table

5-2). Malaysia was the leading GSP beneficiary in

1996, followed by Thailand, Brazil, Indonesia, and the

Philippines (table 5-3). Table A-28 shows the top 20

GSP products or product categories in 1996, and table

A-29 shows the overall sectoral distribution of GSP

benefits.

Caribbean Basin Economic

Recovery Act

Eligible imports from 24 Caribbean Basin

countries entered the United States free of duty or at

reduced duties under the Caribbean Basin Economic

Recovery Act (CBERA) during 1996.38 CBERA has

been operative since January 1, 1984, and, as amended,

the act currently has no statutory expiration date.39

CBERA is the trade-related component of the

Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI).40 President Reagan

launched CBI in 1982 to promote export-led economic

growth and economic diversification in the countries in

the Caribbean Basin.41

A wide range of Caribbean products are eligible for

duty-free entry under CBERA.42 Excluded from

duty-free entry, however, are canned tuna, petroleum

and petroleum derivatives, certain footwear, some

watches and watch parts, sugar from any “Communist”

country, and most textiles and apparel. Certain
144

Table 5-2

U.S. imports for consumption1 from GSP beneficiaries and the world, 1996

(Million dollars)

All GSP

Item beneficiaries World

Total 124,120 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787,628

GSP eligible products3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,839 281,460

Duty-free under GSP4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,922 16,922

GSP program exclusion 4,565 4,565 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All other 8,352 259,972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Noneligible product imports 94,281 506,168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1 Customs-value basis.

2 Excludes imports into the U.S. Virgin Islands.

3 Includes imports from all beneficiary countries and from the world that are eligible for duty-free entry under GSP.

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 goods may not

actually receive duty-free entry under GSP for any of at least four types of reasons: (1) the importer fails to claim GSP

benefits affirmatively, (2) the goods are from a beneficiary country that has lost GSP benefits on that product for

exceeding the so-called “competitive need” limits (discussed above), (3) the goods are from a beneficiary country that

has lost GSP on that product because of a petition to remove that country from GSP benefits for that product, and (4)

the goods fail to meet the rule-of-origin or direct-shipment requirements in the GSP statute.

4 These data show total imports from all GSP beneficiary countries that actually received duty-free entry under

the GSP.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table 5-3

U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP from leading beneficiaries,1 and total, 1996

(Million dollars)

Imports of GSP articles

Total

Rank Beneficiary imports GSP-eligible GSP duty-free2

 1 Malaysia 17,771 7,246 4,064 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Thailand 11,320 4,203 2,341 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 3 Brazil 8,868 3,247 1,962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Indonesia 8,078 2,566 1,861 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Philippines 8,173 1,901 1,428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 India 6,143 1,447 964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 7 Venezuela 12,329 544 509 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Republic of South Africa 2,306 494 429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Argentina 2,189 530 388 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Russia 3,528 487 357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 Top 10 80,704 22,665 14,305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total 124,120 29,839 16,922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1 These import data show total imports from the top 10 beneficiary countries that fall in HTS provisions that are

eligible for duty-free entry under GSP. For a variety of reasons, all imports from beneficiary countries under HTS

provisions that appear to be eligible for GSP do not always and necessarily receive duty-free entry under the GSP.

See footnote 2 in appendix table A-29.

2 These import data show the total imports from the top 10 GSP beneficiary countries that actually received

duty-free entry under the GSP program.

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

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
145

agricultural products (including sugar, dairy products,

cotton, peanuts, and beef) may receive duty-free entry,

subject to U.S. quotas and/or health requirements.

Other restrictions apply to ethyl alcohol produced from

non-Caribbean feedstock. Handbags, luggage, flat

goods (such as wallets, change purses, and eyeglass

cases), work gloves, and leather wearing apparel are

not eligible for CBERA duty-free entry; however,

MFN duty levels on qualifying articles were being

reduced by a total of 20 percent beginning January 1,

1992, in five equal annual installments.

Total U.S. imports from countries designated under

CBERA in 1996 were $14.5 billion. Imports under

CBERA preferences were valued at almost $2.8

billion, or 19.1 percent of the total (table 5-4). The

leading items afforded duty-free entry under CBERA

in 1996 were raw sugar, leather footwear uppers,

cigars, and precious-metal jewelry (table A-30). In

1996, 3 countries—the Dominican Republic, Costa

Rica, and Guatemala—accounted for two-thirds of all

U.S. imports under the CBERA preference (table

A-31).

Andean Trade Preference Act

Designated imports from Bolivia, Colombia,

Ecuador, and Peru entered the United States free of

duty under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA)

during 1996.43 ATPA has been operative since

December 4, 1991, and is scheduled to expire on

December 4, 2001.44 ATPA is the trade-related

component of the Andean Trade Initiative. President

Bush launched the initiative in 1990 to combat the

production of illegal narcotics by helping beneficiaries

promote export-oriented industries.45

ATPA benefits were modeled after CBERA, but

with some limits linked to GSP. A wide range of

Andean products is eligible for duty-free entry. 46

ATPA excludes from duty-free entry the same list of

articles excluded under CBERA. Rum also is

excluded.47 As under CBERA, handbags, luggage, flat

goods (such as wallets, change purses, and eyeglass

cases), work gloves, and leather wearing apparel are

not eligible for ATPA duty-free entry; however, MFN

duties on these articles were being reduced by a total of

20 percent beginning January 1, 1992, in five equal

annual installments.

Table 5-4

U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 1994-96

Item 1994 1995 1996

Total imports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,200,280 12,550,118 14,544,810

Imports under CBERA1

 1,000 dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,050,158 2,261,407 2,791,055

Percent of total 18.3 18.0 19.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1 Value of imports under CBERA has been reduced by the value of MFN duty-free imports and ineligible items

that were misreported as entering under the program.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table 5-5

U.S. imports for consumption from Andean countries, 1994-96

Item 1994 1995 1996

Total imports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,879,505 6,968,729 7,867,646

Imports under ATPA1

(1,000 dollars) 683,817 938,789 1,270,054 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Percent of total 11.6 13.4 16.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1 Value of imports under ATPA has been reduced by the value of MFN duty-free imports and ineligible items that

were misreported as entering under the program.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
146

Total U.S. imports from the four Andean countries

totaled almost $7.9 billion in 1996. Imports under

ATPA preferences (shown by country in table A-32)

were valued at nearly $1.3 billion, or 16.1 percent of

the total (table 5-5). The leading items afforded

duty-free entry under ATPA in 1996 were

chrysanthemums, standard carnations, anthuriums, and

orchids; roses; and precious metal jewelry, including

ropes and chains (table A-33).

National Security Import

Restrictions

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962

authorizes the President, on the basis of a formal

investigation and report by the Secretary of Commerce,

to impose restrictions on imports that threaten to

impair the national security of the United States.48

Among the most important criteria considered by

Commerce are—

 Requirements of the defense and essential

civilian sectors;

 Maximum domestic production capacity;

 Quantity, quality, and availability of imports;

 Impact of foreign competition on the

economic welfare of the essential domestic

industry; and

 Other factors relevant to the unique

circumstances of the specific case.

The President has 90 days to decide on appropriate

action after receipt of the Secretary’s findings. The

section 232 authority to adjust imports has been used

sparingly in the past. It has most notably been

employed in connection with the imposition of quotas,

fees, or economic sanctions on imports of petroleum

products. The U.S. Commerce Department did not

initiate a section 232 investigation during 1996.

Agricultural Adjustment Act

Under section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment

Act (7 U.S.C. 624), the President may take action in

the form of an import fee or quantitative limitation to

restrict imports that render, or tend to render,

ineffective or materially interfere with the operation of

any U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program.

The President acts on the basis of an investigation and

report by the Commission, although he may take

emergency action pending receipt of that report.

Following advice of the Secretary of Agriculture and

the investigation of the USITC, the President may

modify, suspend, or terminate import restrictions

because of changed circumstances.

However, section 401(a)(2) of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act amended subsection (f) of section 22

to prohibit the imposition of quantitative limitations or

fees under section 22 on articles that are the product of

a WTO member. The amendment became effective

with respect to all articles except wheat on the date of

the entry into force of the WTO Agreement (January 1,

1995).49 There were no investigations conducted and

actions in effect under section 22 during 1996.

U.S. Textile and Apparel

Trade Program

Over the next several years, the structure of U.S.

textile and apparel trade will become less restrictive as

a result of the implementation of the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). The ATC

was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of

multilateral trade negotiations to open up world trade

in textiles and apparel by gradually phasing out the

international Multifiber Arrangement (MFA) system of

quotas.

The Uruguay Round Agreement

on Textiles and Clothing

On January 1, 1995, the ATC entered into force as

part of the WTO agreements and replaced the MFA,

which had governed world trade in these goods since

1974. Under the ATC, textiles and apparel will be

gradually “integrated” into the GATT regime; that is,

the sector will be brought under GATT discipline and

subject to the same rules as goods of other sectors. As

WTO countries integrate their textile and apparel trade

into the GATT regime, they are obligated to eliminate

quotas on imports of textiles and apparel from WTO

countries, and they cannot establish new quotas on the

integrated items other than as provided under normal

GATT rules.

Under the ATC, the integration process will occur

over a 10-year transition period in three stages ending

on January 1, 2005. The first stage began on January

1, 1995, when WTO countries were obligated to

integrate into the GATT regime at least 16 percent of

their sector trade, based on 1990 import volume, and to

increase the annual growth rates for quotas still in

place with major suppliers by 16 percent.50 The

second stage begins in 1998, when at least another 17

percent of the trade is to be integrated, followed by at

least an additional 18 percent in 2002. The remainder

of the trade is to be integrated at the end of the 10-year

period.
147

All WTO countries are subject to the disciplines of

the ATC, and only WTO countries are eligible for the

ATC’s benefits. The Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB),

also created during the Uruguay Round, supervises the

implementation of the ATC’s provisions. The ATC

recognizes that some importing countries may need a

special mechanism for avoiding serious damage to

their domestic textile and apparel industries during the

transition period. During the 10 years that the ATC is

in force, WTO countries may limit imports of textiles

or apparel by applying a “transitional safeguard,” or

quota. The safeguard may be applied only to products

that are not subject to quotas in the importing country

and not yet integrated into the GATT regime. The

quota may remain in place for up to 3 years or until the

product is integrated into the GATT.

U.S. Actions in 1996

The United States currently has textile and apparel

quotas with 47 countries, 38 of which are subject to the

terms of the ATC (table 5-6). These 38 countries

supplied 57 percent of the total value of sector imports

in 1996. Bulgaria, Haiti, Qatar, and the United Arab

Emirates became members of the WTO in 1996, at

which times the quotas with these countries became

governed by the provisions of the ATC. Eight

non-WTO countries were subject to U.S. quotas in

1996 and supplied 18 percent of sector imports.

Another 9 percent of the imports came from Mexico, a

WTO member whose textile and apparel shipments to

the United States are governed by NAFTA.

The integration of textiles and apparel into the

GATT regime during the past 2 years has had limited

implications for the U.S. textile and apparel sector.

The Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements (CITA), a U.S. interagency group charged

with implementing and enforcing U.S. textile

agreements, deferred integration of the most sensitive

products until the end of the 10-year transition

period.51 None of the products integrated by the

United States in the first stage was under quota. In

addition, the effect of the quota growth acceleration

(automatic quota “growth-on-growth” liberalization)

provisions of the ATC was small during 1996 and was

expected to remain small in the early phases of the

transition period.

The United States initiated only two

calls—requests for consultations with foreign

supplying countries for the purpose of establishing

quotas—in 1996; of which only one was a safeguard

action taken under the ATC. The latter was an import

quota, established under the ATC, of 209,563 dozen

cotton and manmade-fiber skirts from El Salvador—a

WTO member. The other call resulted in a quota

imposed under section 204 of the Agricultural Act of

1956 of 406,469 dozen on imports of men’s and boys’

cotton and manmade-fiber woven shirts from

Ukraine—a non-WTO member. These 2 calls were

down significantly from the 28 calls the United States

initiated during 1995.52 Two of the 1995 calls were

challenged by the exporting countries during 1996.

Costa Rica challenged the U.S. call on cotton and

manmade-fiber underwear, requesting a review of the

call by the WTO’s TMB. India challenged the U.S.

call on woven wool shirts and blouses and also

requested a review by the TMB.

Both cases were ultimately reviewed by the WTO

dispute settlement panel which, in October 1996, ruled

that the United States should remove the import quota

it had placed on cotton and manmade-fiber underwear

from Costa Rica because it failed to demonstrate that

the U.S. industry had suffered or was threatened with

serious injury caused by those imports.53 The panel

questioned how the underwear imports from Costa

Rica alone could cause or threaten injury to the U.S.

industry when the United States had granted large

quotas for imports of this underwear from five other

suppliers.54 In its finding, the panel reported that “the

fact that the U.S. underwear industry was able to

accept and withstand such a huge inroad of products

from the five other exporting members suggests that

there was no serious damage to the industry in the first

place.”55

In the case of India, the WTO dispute settlement

panel ruled that the United States failed to demonstrate

that its domestic industry was suffering serious damage

or the threat of serious damage when it imposed import

quotas on woven wool shirts and blouses from India in

April 1995.56 This finding overturned earlier findings

by the TMB, which had found in September 1995 that

the United States had demonstrated that the increase in

the imported shirts and blouses from India had caused

actual threat of serious damage to the domestic

industry. Trade sources report that the TMB is likely

to tighten its requirements of proof of damage as a

result of the WTO’s dispute settlement panel’s findings

in both of these cases.57

Other Trade Agreements

The United States currently maintains quotas on

textile and apparel imports from eight non-WTO

countries under section 204 of the Agricultural Act of

1956 (table 5-6). During 1996, memorandums of

understanding (MOUs) were established with the

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia.
148

Table 5-6

Countries with which the United States has textile and apparel quotas, as of February 1, 1997, and

U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from these countries in 1996

(Million dollars)

Country Imports

WTO members subject to the ATC

Bahrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,091

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Bulgaria1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Burma (Myanmar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651

Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,638

Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676

Fiji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734

Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,105

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,734

Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,617

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,375

Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463

Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Macau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655

Mauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,577

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Qatar1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,907

Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Slovak Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,042

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,288

Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689

United Arab Emirates1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Uruguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Non-WTO members subject to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,573

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,531

Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

WTO member subject to the North American Free-Trade Agreement

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,871

 1 Country acceded to the WTO during 1996.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Textiles and Apparel.
149

China

The United States and China reached agreement on

a new 4-year bilateral pact on textiles and apparel trade

in February 1997. The agreement replaces the bilateral

textiles agreement, which expired on Jan. 31, 1997.

The new pact extends U.S. import quotas on textiles

and apparel from China and cuts quotas in product

areas where China had made repeated transshipment

violations. The agreement also establishes market

access for U.S. textile and apparel exports to China for

the first time. The portion of the agreement covering

U.S. import quotas entered into effect on February 1,

1997. The market access portion of the agreement,

covering U.S. exports to China, is scheduled to take

effect on January 1, 1998.58

Regarding market access, China agreed to cut

tariffs, which exceed 50 percent ad valorem, in some

categories, and to bind these tariffs at lower rates.

China also pledged to ensure that nontariff barriers,

such as import licensing and other arrangements, do

not prevent U.S. exporters from benefiting from

improved market access.

Regarding U.S. textile import quotas on Chinese

goods, the agreement addressed U.S. concerns about

illegal transshipment of textiles and apparel. The

agreement cut China’s quota levels in 14 product areas

of U.S. imports which had been subject to illegal

overshipment or transshipment practices. The

agreement continues the enforcement mechanism of

the 1994 agreement, including the possibility to apply

“triple charge” quotas against repeated violations. The

agreement also improves the bilateral consultation

process by enhancing shipment tracking through an

“electronic visa” system, and contains provisions on

the separate treatment of textile import quotas for

Hong Kong and Macau after reversion of the territories

to China. The agreement cut China’s overall access to

the U.S. market by 2.6 percent at the category level.

The pact allows average annual import growth of 1 to 3

percent for U.S. textile imports from China, depending

on product category.

The United States penalized China three times for

violations of the now-expired 1994 agreement. Most

recently, triple charges were levied against China’s

import quotas in September 1996 after illegal

transshipments of textile products to the United States.

The charges were applied in response to shipments to

the United States of products made in China but

re-labeled in and transshipped through Mongolia,

Turkey, Hong Kong, Fiji and other locations to avoid

U.S. import quota limits on products of China. The

Chinese Government denied the U.S. finding of

transshipment. The 1997 bilateral agreement retains

$19 million in charges against China’s textile import

quota allowances that the U.S. imposed in September

1996.59

Transshipment of textiles and apparel through third

countries, especially China, to evade quotas continued

to be a concern for the United States in 1996. The

United States charged China’s quotas on certain

apparel items, sewing thread, and certain towels for

transshipments and misclassification totaling $19

million.60 The U.S. Customs Service continued to

conduct other investigations of transshipments of

textiles and apparel produced in China and exported to

the United States during 1996.

NAFTA

Under NAFTA, which entered into force on

January 1, 1994, the United States agreed to

immediately eliminate quotas on textile and apparel

imports from Mexico that meet NAFTA rules of

origin.61 For imports that do not meet the origin rules,

U.S. quotas will be phased out by 2004. NAFTA

provides for tariff preference levels (TPLs) that allow

limited amounts of textile and apparel imports from

Canada and Mexico that do not meet NAFTA origin

rules to enter at preferential duty rates under

NAFTA.62 With the exception of the TPL on wool

apparel from Canada, the TPLs are under-utilized. In

recent years, Canada has essentially filled its wool

apparel TPL with men’s and boys’ suits, suit-type

jackets, and trousers. From 1988 to 1995, U.S. imports

of the suits from Canada rose from 100,000 units to 1.1

million, raising concern among U.S. suit and tailored

clothing producers.63

In a separate issue, U.S. textile and apparel

industry officials asked that the President authorize

temporary duty-free entry for suits and suit-type

jackets from Mexico if they contain nonoriginating

interlinings.64 A provision of NAFTA, HTS heading

9802.00.90 provides for duty- and quota-free entry for

apparel and other textile goods assembled in Mexico

from fabric wholly made and cut in the United States

(production sharing).65 A recent loss of domestic

supply of certain interlining fabrics used in the

assembly of these suits and suit-type jackets in Mexico

has precluded U.S. firms from importing the garments

under the provision. Consequently, members of the

U.S. textile and apparel industry are requesting

temporary quota- and duty-free entry to allow domestic

firms time to develop and test the interlining fabrics.

Section 201 (b)(1)(A) of the NAFTA Implementation

Act (19 U.S.C. 3331(b)(1)(A)) authorizes the President

to proclaim such modifications of any duty as the

President determines to be necessary to maintain the
150

general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous

concessions with respect to Canada or Mexico

provided for by NAFTA, subject to the consultation

and layover requirements of section 103(a) of the

NAFTA Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3313 (a)).

Currently, the President has submitted his proposal for

change and the advice reports to the Congress, which

has 60 days to react to the President’s proposal.

U.S. Trade in 1996

U.S. imports of MFA products in 1996 rose by 4

percent over the 1995 level to a record 19.1 billion

square meter equivalents (SMEs) valued at $46 billion

(figure 5-1). The increase marked a continuation of a

slowdown in the growth of imports, which rose by only

6 percent in 1995 and by 9 percent in 1994. The gain

in 1996 imports was fairly evenly divided between

imports of apparel, which rose by 5 percent to 9.7

billion SMEs valued at $36.4 billion, and imports of

textiles, which rose by 4 percent to 9.4 billion SMEs

valued at $9.5 billion.

The Caribbean Basin countries, Canada, and

especially Mexico accounted for virtually all of the

increase in sector imports in 1996. These countries

benefit from preferential access to the U.S. market

under U.S. trade agreement programs—Caribbean

Basin countries under CBERA, discussed above in

more detail, and Canada and Mexico under NAFTA.

Sector imports from Mexico escalated in 1996, rising

by 42 percent to 2.2 billion SMEs valued at $4.2

billion, enabling Mexico to surpass China to become

the single largest country supplier of textiles and

apparel. Sector imports from Caribbean Basin

countries rose by a much slower 10 percent to 2.4

billion SMEs valued at $6.1 billion in 1996.66 The

vast majority of the imports from both Mexico and the

Caribbean Basin countries consisted of garments

assembled from U.S. components and entered under

production sharing provisions.67 The use of

production sharing operations by U.S. apparel

companies has grown rapidly in recent years as U.S.

producers, faced with a highly competitive retail

environment, expand their use of offshore assembly

operations in Caribbean Basin countries and Mexico to

cut costs.

The pattern of sector competition between the

Caribbean Basin countries and Mexico has changed

since the implementation of NAFTA on January 1,

1994. In the 4 years before NAFTA, U.S. imports of

MFA-covered textiles and apparel in volume terms

rose at an average annual rate of 18 percent for

Caribbean Basin countries and 15 percent for Mexico.

The growth in Caribbean Basin shipments since then

has lagged behind that of Mexico. In 1994, the growth

rate slowed to 15 percent for Caribbean Basin

countries but accelerated to 31 percent for Mexico. In

1995, the volume of Caribbean Basin imports resumed

a strong upward trend, rising by 22 percent; however,

Mexico’s shipments rose by 59 percent. The

22-percent growth in Caribbean Basin imports in 1995

has been attributed to optimism by the U.S. apparel

industry that imports from the Caribbean Basin

countries would be granted NAFTA parity (i.e., the

same reduced tariffs available to imports from Mexico

under NAFTA). The significant slowdown in growth

in 1996 Caribbean Basin imports reflects U.S.

industry’s concerns and uncertainty over the prospects

of passage of any type of legislation which would grant

NAFTA parity to Caribbean Basin countries. Industry

sources reported in 1996 that although U.S. producers

continue to utilize existing production sharing

operations in the Caribbean Basin (in order to diversify

their sources), new investment or expansion of

production sharing facilities continued to increase in

Mexico. In fact, U.S. industry officials claimed that

NAFTA has led to a measurable diversion of trade and

investment from Caribbean Basin countries to

Mexico.68 Eligible imported garments from Mexico

enter quota- and duty-free under NAFTA-authorized

heading 9802.00.90 of the HTS. Comparable apparel

imports from Caribbean Basin countries are still

subject to duty on the value added offshore.69 The

devaluation of the Mexican peso during December

1994-January 1995 further affected the competitive

balance between Mexico and Caribbean Basin

countries by effectively reducing dollar prices of

Mexican goods in the U.S. market.

U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from China

and two of the traditional Big Three Asian suppliers to

the United States—Hong Kong and Korea—continued

to decline in 1996, when these countries, together with

Taiwan, accounted for 23.4 percent of total sector

trade, compared with 38.5 percent in 1991 (figure 5-1).

Sector imports from China fell by 7 percent in 1996 to

1.6 billion SMEs; while the value of these imports rose

by 2 percent to almost $4.9 billion. The decline in the

quantity of imports from China partly reflected tight

U.S. import quotas. The bilateral agreement with

China provided for 1-percent quota growth in 1996 and

adjustments related to transshipment charges cut the

actual quota available for 1996. Sector imports from

Hong Kong dropped by 9 percent during 1996 to 892

million SMEs valued at $4.0 billion; these imports

from Korea declined by 9 percent to 729.6 SMEs

valued at $2.0 billion; while those from Taiwan rose by

3 percent to 1.2 billion SMEs valued at $2.7 billion.
151

















































Figure 5-1

U.S. imports of textiles and apparel covered by the MFA, by major suppliers, 1991 and 1996

Total 12.8 billion square meter equivalents

Note.—The Big Three refers to Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan. Other Asia consists of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri

Lanka, and Macau. In addition, OECD does not include Mexico, a member country.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Big Three

25.0%

Other

9.9%

Other Asia

11.1%

ASEAN

11.7%

OECD

16.0%

Mexico

4.4%

China

13.5%



















































Total 19.1 billion square meter equivalents

Big Three

14.8%

Other

8.1%

CBI

12.5%

ASEAN

11.4%

OECD

17.8%

Mexico

11.6%

China

8.6%

1991:

1996:

Other Asia

15.2%

CBI

8.4%
152

Although restricted to some extent by quotas, the Big

Three were largely affected by continued rising

operating costs, labor shortages, and growing

competition from lower-cost countries.

U.S. textile and apparel imports from the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

remained relatively stable in 1996. U.S. textile and

apparel imports from the Philippines grew by only 2

percent in 1996, while those from Indonesia grew by

12 percent. Sector imports from Thailand, Malaysia,

and Singapore all declined in 1996. Imports from the

“other Asia” countries, led by India and Pakistan, grew

by 9 percent in quantity terms in 1996, the value by 6

percent. The value of these imports, however, grew by

a much slower 4 percent. Since 1991, other Asia’s

share of world textile and apparel imports grew from

11.1 percent to 15.2 percent in 1996.

New Rules of Origin for Textiles

and Apparel

On July 1, 1996, the United States implemented

new rules of origin for imports of textiles and apparel

as provided for by section 334 of the URAA. The

change in origin rules affects country-of-origin

determinations for U.S. imports of products that are

subject to manufacturing and processing operations in,

or contain components from, more than one country.

Under the old rules, textile products (especially

apparel) assembled in one country from parts cut from

fabric made in another country generally were

considered the product of the country in which the

cutting occurred. The new rules assign origin to the

country of assembly. For home furnishing textiles like

sheets and pillow cases, the old rules generally

conferred origin in the country in which the goods

were cut to size from fabric rolls, hemmed, and

otherwise sewn. The new rules confer origin in the

country in which the fabric is woven. For fabrics

woven in one country and dyed, printed, and otherwise

finished in another, the old rules generally conferred

origin in the country where the finishing took place,

whereas the new rules confer origin in the country in

which the weaving takes place.

Numerous disputes with U.S. trading partners have

evolved concerning these new rules. For example,

European producers which import fabric from such

countries as China, India, and Pakistan, and process the

fabric by bleaching, dyeing, or printing as well as

cutting and sewing such products as silk scarves,

draperies, and bed linens in Europe, can no longer

benefit from an European Union (EU)

country-of-origin label. Under the new rules, these

producers must label their products according to where

the fabric is woven. In addition, the EU producers may

have to obtain quotas and visas from the

fabric-producing countries before they can export the

products to the United States if their products are

covered by U.S. quotas. The EU has threatened to take

the United States to the WTO if legislation to correct

this is not introduced in the U.S. Congress by April 4,

1997.
153

ENDNOTES

1 19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.

2 19 U.S.C. 2436.

3 19 U.S.C. 3351 et seq.

4 19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.

5 Under the global safeguard law, the

Commission conducts investigations to determine

whether an article is being imported into the United

States in such increased quantities as to be a

substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat

thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article

like or directly competitive with the imported article.

19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)(A). If the Commission makes

an affirmative determination, it is to recommend to

the President the action that would address the

serious injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic

industry and be most effective in facilitating the

efforts of the domestic industry to make a positive

adjustment to import competition. 19 U.S.C.

2252(e)(1).

6 Under the NAFTA bilateral safeguard law, the

Commission conducts investigations to determine

whether, as a result of the reduction or elimination of

a duty provided for under NAFTA, a Canadian or

Mexican article is being imported into the United

States in such increased quantities (in absolute

terms) and under such conditions so that imports of

the article, alone, constitute a substantial cause of

serious injury, or (except in the case of Canada) the

threat of serious injury, to the domestic industry

producing an article that is like, or directly

competitive with, the imported article. 19 U.S.C.

3352(b). If the Commission makes an affirmative

determination, the Commission recommends to the

President the relief that is necessary to prevent or

remedy the serious injury. 19 U.S.C. 3353(b).

7 Inv. Nos. TA-201-65 and NAFTA 302-1, Broom

Corn Brooms, USITC publication 2984, Aug. 1996.

8 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Presidential

Safeguard Actions on Broom Corn Brooms,”

message reference no. 184686, prepared by U.S.

Department of State, Sept. 6, 1996. On Jan. 14,

1997, Mexico filed a request for the establishment of

a panel under NAFTA chapter 20. NAFTA dispute

settlement mechanisms are described in ch. 3.

9 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Presidential

Safeguard Actions on Broom Corn Brooms,”

message reference no. 184686, prepared by U.S.

Department of State, Sept. 6, 1996.

10 See Presidential Proclamation 6961 of Nov.

28, 1996, 61 F.R. 64431 and accompanying

Presidential memorandum of the same date at 61

F.R. 64439.

11 Inv. No. TA-201-66, Fresh Tomatoes and Bell

Peppers, USITC publication 2985, Aug. 1996.

12 Sec. 250 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2331), as added by sec. 502 of the NAFTA

Implementation Act.

13 Sections 251 through 264 of the TAA.

14 Derived from official statistics of the U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, Management Information System.

15 Ibid.

16 During FY 1996, 63,944 workers filed for TRA

and 29,607 workers received at least their first

payment.

17 Information contained in this table was

compiled from USTR, Report to Congress on Section

301 Developments Required by Section 309(a)(3) of

the Trade Act of 1974.

18 19 U.S.C. 1673 et seq.

19 19 U.S.C. 1677b; 19 CFR part 353, subpart D.

20 Upon the filing of a petition, the Commission

has 45 days to make a preliminary determination of

whether there is a reasonable indication of material

injury or threat of material injury to an industry or of

a material retardation of the establishment of an

industry. If this determination is affirmative,

Commerce continues its investigation and makes

preliminary and final determinations concerning

whether the imported article is being, or is likely to

be, sold at LTFV. If Commerce reaches a final

affirmative dumping determination, the Commission

has 45 days thereafter to make its final injury

determination. If the Commission’s preliminary

determination is negative, by contrast, both the

Commission and Commerce terminate further

investigation.

21 The figures set forth in this section do not

include court-remanded investigations on which new

votes were taken or investigations terminated before

a determination was reached.

22 An antidumping investigation may be

suspended through an agreement before a final

determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

An 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 6 months.

In extraordinary circumstances, an investigation may

be suspended if exporters agree to revise prices to

completely eliminate the injurious effect of the

imports. A suspended investigation is reinstituted

should LTFV sales recur. See 19 U.S.C. 1673c.

23 When a petition alleges dumping (or subsidies)

with respect to more than one like product and/or by

more than one country, separate investigations

generally are instituted for imports of each product

from each country and each such investigation may

be given a separate number. For this reason, the

numbers of investigations instituted and

determinations made may exceed the number of

petitions filed. Moreover, an investigation based on a

petition filed in 1 calendar year may not be

completed until the next year. Thus, the number of

petitions filed may not correspond closely to the

number of determinations made. Additionally, the

numbers set forth in this tabulation do not include
154

determinations made following court-ordered

remands.

24 These figures include petitions withdrawn

voluntarily by petitioners.

25 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. 19 U.S.C. 1677(5), and 1677-1(a).

26 The figures set forth in this section do not

include court-remanded cases on which new votes

were taken or investigations terminated before a

determination was reached.

27 A countervailing duty investigation may be

suspended through an agreement before a final

determination by Commerce if—(1) the subsidizing

country, or exporters accounting for substantially all

of the imports of the merchandise under

investigation, agree to eliminate the subsidy, to

completely offset the net subsidy, or to cease exports

of the merchandise to the United States within 6

months; or (2) extraordinary circumstances are

present and the government or exporters described

above agree to completely eliminate the injurious

effect of the imports of the merchandise under

investigation. A suspended investigation is

reinstituted if subsidization recurs. 19 U.S.C. 1671c.

28 Because a petition will sometimes name more

than one product and/or country, and because each

product and country named is designated as a

separate investigation when proceedings are formally

instituted, the number of investigations instituted and

determinations made generally exceeds the number

of petitions filed.

29 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

30 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(6).

31 Also unlawful under section 337 are other

unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the

importation of articles into the United States, or in

the sale of imported articles, the threat or effect of

which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic

industry, to prevent the establishment of an industry,

or to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in

the United States. Examples of other unfair acts are

misappropriation of trade secrets, common law

trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade

dress, 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

and not under section 337.

32 Section 337 proceedings at the Commission

are conducted before an administrative law judge in

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

U.S.C. 551 et seq. The administrative law judge

conducts an evidentiary hearing and makes an initial

determination, which is transmitted to the

Commission. The Commission may adopt the

determination by deciding not to review it, or it may

choose to review it. 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 the President, and

whether public interest considerations preclude the

issuance of a remedy.

33 19 U.S.C. 2462(b).

34 19 U.S.C. 2463.

35 “[A]n amount which bears the same ratio to

$25,000,000 as the gross national product of the

United States for the preceding calendar year (as

determined by the Department of Commerce) bears

to the gross national product of the United States for

calendar year 1974” (which in 1995 was

approximately $122 million) to a dollar value for

calendar year 1996 of $75,000,000 and for each

calendar year thereafter, an amount equal to the

applicable amount in effect for the preceding

calendar year plus $5,000,000.

36 “[A]n amount which bears the same ratio to

$5,000,000 as the gross national product of the

United States for that calendar year (as determined

by the Department of Commerce) bears to the gross

national product of the United States for calendar

year 1979” (which in 1995 was approximately $14

million) to a value for calendar year of $13,000,000

and for each calendar year thereafter, an amount

equal to the applicable amount in effect for the

preceding calendar year plus $500,000.

37 As discussed above, the U.S. GSP program

expired on July 31, 1995, and was extended

retroactively through May 31, 1997 by legislation

signed by the President on Aug. 20, 1996. Because

of the lapse of GSP benefits, articles otherwise

eligible for GSP duty-free entry were subject to

ordinary MFN duties during the period of GSP lapse

unless another valid preferential tariff benefit, such as

that provided by the Caribbean Basin Economic

Recovery Act or the Andean Trade Preference Act

(discussed below), was claimed and accorded.

Duties paid on articles otherwise eligible for GSP

duty-free entry during the period of GSP lapse were

eligible to be refunded once the program again

became operative. Procedures for such refunds

were announced in U.S. Customs Service,

“Procedures If the Generalized System of

Preferences Program Expires,” 60 F.R. 35103.

38 The 24 countries designated for CBERA

benefits are listed in table A-33.

39 Public Law 98-67, title II, 97 Stat. 384, 19

U.S.C. 2701 et seq. Relatively minor amendments

were made to CBERA by Public Laws 98-573,

99-514, 99-570, and 100-418. CBERA was

significantly expanded by the Caribbean Basin

Economic Recovery Expansion Act of 1990, Public

Law 101-382, title II, 104 Stat. 629, 19 U.S.C. 2101

note.

40 For a more detailed description of the CBERA,

including country and product eligibility, see USITC,

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on

U.S. Industries and Consumers, Eleventh Report,

1996, USITC publication 2994, Sept. 1996.

41 President, “Address Before the Permanent

Council of the Organization of American States,”

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Mar.

1, 1982, pp. 217-223.

42 Section 213(a) of CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(a))

establishes criteria, or rules of origin, to determine

which articles are eligible for duty-free treatment

under the act.
155

43 For a more detailed description of the ATPA,

including country and product eligibility, see USITC,

Andean Trade Preference Act: Impact on U.S.

Industries and Consumers and on Drug Crop

Eradication and Crop Substitution, Third Report,

1996, USITC publication 2995, Sept. 1996.

44 19 U.S.C. 3202.

45 President, “Remarks Following Discussions

With President Rodrigo Borja Cevallos of Ecuador,”

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, July

23, 1990, pp. 1140-1143.

46 Section 204(a) of ATPA (19 U.S.C. 3203(a))

establishes rules of origin to determine which articles

are eligible for duty-free treatment under the Act.

47 ATPA sec. 204(b), 19 U.S.C. 3203(b).

48 19 U.S.C. 1862.

49 With the exception of the tariff-rate quotas in

effect on wheat, all section 22 fees and quantitative

limitations on agricultural products were converted to

bound tariffs (tariffs may not be raised above a

bound level without compensating affected parties)

under a process known as “tariffication.” The special

tariff-rate quotas on wheat were allowed to expire in

September 1995.

50 The acceleration of quota growth rates is

based on the rates specified in the bilateral MFA

agreements in place on Dec. 31, 1994. At that time,

the annual quota growth rates with major WTO

suppliers such as Hong Kong and Korea were less

than 3 percent, and those with most other, smaller

WTO suppliers were less than 7 percent. In the

second and third stages of GATT integration, quota

growth for major suppliers is to be increased by

another 25 and 27 percent, respectively. For small

suppliers (those accounting for 1.2 percent or less of

an importing country’s total quotas as of Dec. 31,

1991), quota growth is to be advanced by one stage,

that is, growth rates are to be increased by 25

percent in the first stage and by another 27 percent

in both the second and third stages. For more

information on the ATC’s integration process, see

USITC, The Year in Trade 1995, Operation of the

Trade Agreements Program 47th Report, USITC

publication 2971, Aug. 1996, pp. 81-84.

51 Ibid., p. 82.

52 Citing changing U.S. market conditions, CITA

rescinded 15 of the 28 calls made in 1995. All of

the calls rescinded were made with WTO members.

53 Costa Rica initiated formal WTO dispute

settlement procedures when the WTO’s Textile

Monitoring Body (TMB) was unable to reach a

conclusion as to whether the United States

demonstrated a threat of serious damage. The TMB

had already concluded that the United States had

failed to show serious damage.

54 The United States granted quotas to Colombia,

El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Turkey,

which together totaled 170,305,774 dozen units and

amounted to an increase of 478 percent over

then-current import levels. Imports from Costa Rica

totaled 14,423,178 dozen units and amounted to an

increase of 22 percent over then-current levels.

55 WTO, “WTO Panel Report on Costa Rica

Underwear,” VII. Findings.

56 Following a significant drop in U.S. imports of

the woven wool shirts from India, CITA withdrew the

restraint or quota on Dec. 4, 1996.

57 See, for example, Frances Williams, “U.S.

Loses WTO Textiles Cases,” Financial Times, Jan. 7,

1997, p. 6.

58 USTR, “U.S. and China Reach Four-Year

Textile Trade Agreement—U.S. Gains Market Access

in China and Targets Areas of Transshipment

Violations for Cutbacks,” press release 97-07, Feb. 2,

1997.

59 Under the 1994 agreement, the United States

applied over $80 million in charges against China for

violations of the textiles agreement. For a summary

of the textile dispute with China, see ch. 4.

60 Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements, “New Transshipment and

Misclassification Charges for Certain Cotton,

Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable

Fiber Textiles and Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured In the People’s Republic of China,” 61

F.R., 47892.

61 The NAFTA rule of origin is basically a “yarn

forward” rule, which requires that textile and apparel

goods be produced in a NAFTA country from the

yarn stage forward in order to receive the benefits of

the agreement.

62 TPLS (formerly tariff rate quotas, or TRQs,

under the United States-Canada Free Trade

Agreement) were developed primarily to alleviate

short supply problems, especially as they relate to

manufacturers’ inputs.

63 For a summary of the wool dispute with

Canada, see ch. 4.

64 For more information on this proposal, see

USITC, Advice on Providing Temporary Duty-Free

Entry For Certain Suits and Suit-Type Jackets From

Mexico, Report to the President on Investigation No.

332-373, USITC publication 3012, Jan. 1997.

65 See the section on Mexico and production

sharing in ch. 3 for further discussion.

66 U.S. textile and apparel imports from Canada

increased by 16 percent in 1996 to 1.8 billion SMEs

valued at $2.0 billion. Just over 92 percent of the

quantity of imports from Canada consisted of textiles

and largely reflects trade between subsidiaries of

U.S. and Canadian textile companies.

67 In general, duties on goods entered under

heading 9802.00.80 of the HTS are assessed only

on the value added offshore and not on the value of

the U.S. components sent abroad for assembly.

68 Letter to William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman,

Senate Finance Committee, in support of NAFTA

parity for Caribbean Basin countries, jointly signed by

the American Apparel Manufacturers Association,

American Textile Manufacturers Institute, United

States Apparel Industry Council, American Yarn

Spinners Association, and American Fiber

Manufacturers Association, Oct. 3, 1995.

69 For every $10 in f.o.b. value, a typical

Caribbean Basin garment entered under the
156

production sharing provision contains $6.40 in

duty-free U.S. components and $3.60 in dutiable,

foreign value-added. Applying the 1995

trade-weighted tariff on apparel of 16.1 percent ad

valorem to the foreign value-added yields a duty of

$0.58, or an ad valorem equivalent of 5.8 percent.
157

CHAPTER 6

Major U.S. Trade Sanctions Activities

This section reviews major U.S. trade sanctions

activities for which there were significant changes in

scope or operation of the sanctions during 1996.1 The

United States imposes trade sanctions against specific

foreign countries under several statutory authorities.2

Most are administered and enforced by the Office of

Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S.

Department of the Treasury; a few specifically targeted

trade embargoes are administered and enforced by

other agencies. OFAC acts under Presidential wartime

and national emergency powers, as well as authority

granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on

transactions and to freeze assets under U.S.

jurisdiction.3 Other offices and agencies, including the

Bureau of Export Administration Export Enforcement

in the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S.

Customs Service, play a supportive role in monitoring

compliance with the U.S. measures. Some of the U.S.

sanctions are based on United Nations (UN)

resolutions and other international measures that are

multilateral in scope, and are carried out in close

cooperation with other governments.

During 1996, the United States lifted certain trade

sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

(Serbia and Montenegro) and the Bosnian

Serb-controlled areas of the Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina. The United States also implemented an

exception to sanctions on trade with Iraq to permit

imports of petroleum and petroleum products from that

country and exports of certain humanitarian goods.

Also during 1996, the United States enacted three

statutes to expand or reinforce trade sanctions already

applied—the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity

Act of 1996, to expand economic sanctions against

Cuba; the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, to

expand trade sanctions against those countries; and the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

to authorize criminal penalties to be imposed against

U.S. persons engaged in unauthorized financial

transactions with Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,

Sudan, and Syria. In addition, the United States

imposed embargoes on imports of certain shrimp and

yellowfin tuna from certain countries. These 1996

trade sanctions-related developments are described in

more detail below.

Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro)

U.S. sanctions with the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) were first

imposed in 1992.4 Access to assets under U.S.

jurisdiction was blocked for the Governments,

companies, or individuals located or resident in Serbia

and Montenegro or held in the name of the former

Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia or the recently constituted Federal Republic

of Yugoslavia; in addition, trade and other transactions

with these entities were prohibited. These sanctions

were later applied to Bosnian Serb-controlled areas of

the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.5

On November 21, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio, the

presidents of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

(Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, and the Republic of Croatia initialed the

General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia

and Herzegovina and the Annexes thereto (hereafter

Peace Agreement), which was signed by the parties in

Paris on December 14, 1995. On November 22, 1995,

the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1022 to

immediately and indefinitely suspend sanctions against

the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro). Sanctions against the Bosnian Serb

forces and the areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under

their control were to remain in effect until Bosnian

Serb troops withdrew to agreed borders. The

resolution provides for the reimposition of sanctions if

any of the parties fail to meet their obligations under

the Peace Agreement and it is so reported by the

commander of the international force (IFOR) deployed

in accordance with that agreement.6

Following the adoption of UN Security Council

Resolution 1022, President Clinton issued a

Presidential Determination that, among other things,
158

directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take action to

suspend the application of the U.S. sanctions imposed

against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro).7 Pursuant to that Presidential

Determination, OFAC issued regulations to partially

suspend sanctions against the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) effective January

16, 1996.8 The IFOR commander transmitted a report

to the UN Security Council on February 26, 1996,

confirming that the Bosnian Serbs had complied with

the terms of the Peace Agreement; consequently, on

May 10, 1996, U.S. sanctions also were suspended

against the Bosnian Serb-controlled areas of the

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.9

As a result of these changes to U.S. regulations

during 1996, prospective trade and financial

transactions involving both the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Republic

of Bosnia and Herzegovina are permitted. Except as

authorized by OFAC, assets blocked prior to

suspension will remain blocked until provisions are

made to address claims or encumbrances, including the

claims of successor states of the former Yugoslavia.10

Iraq

Following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq11

and subsequent passage of resolutions by the UN

Security Council calling upon members to impose

sanctions against Iraq,12 the United States imposed a

complete trade embargo against Iraq.13 In keeping

with UN Security Council Resolution 986 (discussed in

more detail below), the United States prohibits imports

of goods or services, or any activity that promotes or is

intended to promote such imports, from Iraq either

directly or through third countries. Goods, technology,

or services cannot be exported from the United States

to Iraq either directly or through third countries subject

to U.S. jurisdiction with the exception of

OFAC-licensed food, medical supplies intended to

relieve human suffering, and certain other

humanitarian goods. In addition, U.S. persons (natural

and legal) generally are prohibited from dealing in

Iraqi-origin goods or in any goods exported from Iraq

to any country after August 6, 1990, and are prohibited

from dealing in property intended for export to Iraq

from any country. U.S. persons also are generally

prohibited from performance of contracts in support of

industrial, commercial, public utility, or governmental

projects in Iraq and from involvement in any financial,

sales, or service contracts that will have an impact on

projects in Iraq. These regulations do not apply to

foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies; however, U.S.

parent corporations and all U.S. citizens or residents,

wherever located, are prohibited from approving or

providing financial assistance, advice, consulting

services, goods, or any other support to subsidiaries in

connection with Iraqi projects.14

UN Security Council Resolution 661 (1990),

Resolution 687 (1991), and subsequent resolutions

direct UN member states to apply a complete embargo

on trade with Iraq and to apply other economic

sanctions until such time as the Government of Iraq

comes into compliance with that country’s obligations

under the 1991 Persian Gulf War cease-fire

arrangements. Specifically, Iraq is banned from having

or acquiring nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons

and long-range ballistic missiles (so-called weapons of

mass destruction). Resolution 661 provided for the

establishment of an Iraq Sanctions Committee (also

referred to as the “661 Committee”), consisting of

representatives of all the members of the UN Security

Council, to oversee implementation of the sanctions on

Iraq.15

On April 14, 1995, the UN Security Council

approved Resolution 986 which, subject to certain

conditions, authorizes UN member states to permit the

import of petroleum and petroleum products

originating in Iraq up to a combined total of $2 billion

($1 billion per calendar-year quarter for 6 months, with

possible renewal by the Security Council for additional

6-month periods) and authorizes the sale of certain

humanitarian goods to Iraq. Contracts to purchase

Iraqi oil must be individually reviewed by the UN Iraq

Sanctions Committee, or by designated “oil overseers”

appointed by the UN Secretary General, to determine

whether the contracts conform to the requirements of

Resolution 986 and to ensure that the contracts reflect

fair market value and do not appear to be fraudulent;

alternatively, contracts may use a pre-approved, and

periodically adjusted, “oil pricing mechanism” to

ensure that transactions are at fair market value and are

not fraudulent.16

All proceeds from sales of Iraqi oil under

Resolution 986 are to be deposited directly into a

UN-controlled escrow account.17 The only authorized

disbursements from that account are for: (1) payments

to the UN Compensation Commission to settle claims

arising from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (30 percent of

the funds, or approximately $300 million every 90

days); (2) deductions for the cost of implementing

Resolution 986 and for certain UN costs; (3) up to $10

million every 90 days to reimburse countries for

deposits made into the escrow account pursuant to

Resolution 778; (4) the purchase of parts and

equipment necessary for the safe operation of the

Kirkuk-Yumurtalik (Iraq-Turkey) pipeline in Iraq; (5)
159

payments of between $130 million to $150 million

every 90 days to the UN Inter-Agency Humanitarian

Program for the purchase and distribution of

humanitarian goods in northern Iraq; and (6) the

remainder for use by the Government of Iraq to

purchase humanitarian goods such as food and medical

equipment for distribution throughout the rest of the

country. The UN Secretariat is to examine each

contract for humanitarian goods to ensure that the

goods are eligible to be shipped to Iraq, and to advise

on the availability of funds in the escrow account for

the contract. The UN Iraq Sanctions Committee must

approve by consensus each contract for humanitarian

goods individually. Payments for humanitarian goods

are authorized only after the UN Secretary General has

received confirmation from independent international

inspection agents, stationed at Iraq’s port of Umm Qasr

and at Iraq’s borders with Turkey and Jordan, that the

goods have arrived in Iraq.18

Although this so-called “oil-for-food” provision

was available to Iraq since 1995, a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the UN Secretariat and

Iraq agreeing on terms for implementing Resolution

986 was not signed until May 20, 1996,19 and the

Government of Iraq did not submit a Distribution Plan

for the humanitarian goods it intends to purchase until

July 18, 1996.20 The August 31, 1996 Iraqi attack on

the city of Irbil, in the predominately Kurdish area of

northern Iraq, also delayed implementation of

Resolution 986 while the UN re-evaluated the security

situation and distribution plan for northern Iraq.21

Moreover, the Government of Iraq only agreed in late

November 1996 to comply fully with UN provisions

for independent observers to monitor oil exports and to

oversee the equitable distribution of humanitarian

supplies.22 On December 9, 1996, UN

Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali formally

notified the UN Security Council President, who in

turn notified the members of the Council, that the

necessary conditions to implement Resolution 986

were satisfied; implementation of Resolution 986

officially began on December 10, 1996.23

In July 1996, OFAC amended the Iraqi Sanctions

Regulations to implement the terms and conditions of

Resolution 986.24 Those amendments provided a

general license authorizing U.S. persons to enter into

executory contracts with the Government of Iraq, with

performance conditioned upon further authorization by

OFAC. All executory contracts were required to be

consistent with the provisions of Resolution 986 and

any other applicable UN Resolutions, memoranda, and

subsequent guidance issued by the Iraq Sanctions

Committee.25 Following the UN implementation of

Resolution 986 in December 1996, OFAC issued

licensing procedures for dealings in Iraqi-origin

petroleum and petroleum products exported from Iraq

with UN approval, sales of essential pipeline parts and

equipment, and sales of humanitarian goods pursuant

to Resolution 986.26 Actual performance of executory

contracts requires the issuance of separate specific

licenses by OFAC; OFAC forwards requests to export

to Iraq to the United States Mission to the United

Nations, which submits the request to the UN Iraq

Sanctions Committee.27 U.S. persons seeking to

purchase petroleum and petroleum products from Iraq

or from Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Organization must

receive a specific license from OFAC authorizing the

licensee to deal directly with the Iraq Sanctions

Committee or the oil overseers. U.S. persons seeking

to export to Iraq oil pipeline parts and equipment, or to

sell humanitarian items to Iraq, must receive a specific

license from OFAC in advance of the proposed sale

and exportation. Notwithstanding these authorized

transactions with Iraq pursuant to Resolution 986,

debits to blocked accounts and direct financial

transactions with the Government of Iraq remain

prohibited.28

Cuba

Background

The United States implemented an embargo on

most trade with Cuba29 in 1962. The embargo

remained in force during 1996.30 No U.S. products or

services may be exported to Cuba, either directly or

through third countries, except for publications and

other information materials, and certain humanitarian

goods licensed for export by the U.S. Department of

Commerce, such as medicine and medical supplies.

U.S. persons may not deal in or assist with the sale of

goods or commodities to or from Cuba from offshore

locations. Goods and services of Cuban origin may not

be imported into the United States either directly or

through third countries, except for small amounts of

merchandise brought by authorized travelers and

publications, artwork, or other informational materials.

No vessel carrying goods or passengers to or from

Cuba or carrying goods in which Cuba or a Cuban

national has any interest may enter a U.S. port; vessels

engaged in trade with Cuba are prohibited from

loading or unloading freight at any place in the United

States for 180 days after departing a Cuban port. There

is a total freeze on Cuban Governmental and private

assets within the jurisdiction of the United States, and

on financial dealings with Cuba. All property of Cuba,

of Cuban nationals, and of certain specially designated

nationals of Cuba in the possession of U.S. persons is
160

blocked.31 In the mid-1970s, U.S. economic sanctions

were amended to permit OFAC to license foreign

subsidiaries of U.S. firms to conduct trade with Cuba

so long as several specific criteria were met; that trade

was prohibited in 1992.32

Libertad (Helms-Burton) Act

On March 12, 1996, President Clinton signed into

law the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity

(Libertad) Act of 1996 (also known as the

Helms-Burton Act),33 following the downing of two

unarmed U.S. civilian aircraft over international

waters, taking the lives of four U.S. citizens and

residents, by the Cuban Government on February 24,

1996. The Libertad Act contains provisions to: (1)

codify all U.S. embargo restrictions against Cuba that

were in effect as of March 1, 1996; (2) bar U.S. private

investment in Cuba’s domestic telephone

infrastructure; (3) create a private right of action in

U.S. courts that permits U.S. nationals whose property

was confiscated by the Cuban Government after the

1959 revolution in that country,34 to sue Cuban

governmental entities or foreign investors who use or

profit in any way from these properties (title III of the

Libertad Act); and (4) deny visas and entry into the

United States of individuals who traffic in

U.S.-claimed properties in Cuba after March 12, 1996,

and their immediate family members, as well as

corporate officers and controlling shareholders of

entities which traffic in such properties (title IV of the

Libertad Act).35

Title III of the Libertad Act originally was

scheduled to become effective Aug. 1, 1996. However,

this title of the Libertad Act also permits the President

to suspend the right to file suit if the President

determines that to do so is in the national interest and

would expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba, and

requires the President to review that decision every six

months. On July 16, 1996, President Clinton

announced that he would allow title III of the Libertad

Act to enter into force—putting companies doing

business in Cuba on notice that, by trafficking in

allegedly expropriated properties, they face the

prospect of lawsuits in the United States. However, the

President suspended for six months (until February 1,

1997) the right to file suit pursuant to title III, and

appointed Stuart E. Eizenstat, Undersecretary for

International Trade in the U.S. Department of

Commerce, as special representative to achieve

common approach with U.S. allies and trading partners

toward achieving democracy in Cuba.36 The President

also sent letters to three companies—Sherritt

International (Canada), Grupo Domos (Mexico), and

Stet (Italy)—warning them that their practices might

conflict with title IV of the Libertad Act; visas

ultimately were denied for officials from Sherritt and

Grupo Domos.37

Several foreign governments registered objections

in international fora to the extraterritorial scope of the

Libertad Act, noting in particular that its provisions

apply to any individual or company, regardless of

nationality or country of residence. The United States

held a series of consultations on the Libertad Act with

NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico beginning on

April 18, 1996.38 At the request of Canada and

Mexico, the NAFTA Commission convened to discuss

this dispute; however, neither country requested the

establishment of a NAFTA dispute resolution panel on

the Libertad Act during 1996. U.S. officials briefed a

combined session of the European Commission,

Council Secretariat, and a special committee of EU

permanent representatives on implementation of the

Libertad Act on May 6, 1996.39 The Libertad Act also

was the subject of criticism during discussions in the

OECD Trade Committee40 and made the focus of

extended discussion in the OECD Committee on

Capital Movements and Invisible Transactions.41

Canada, the EU, and Cuba itself implemented

legislation to block enforcement of the Libertad Act.

In September 1996, the Canadian Government42

introduced legislation to allow the Attorney General of

Canada to issue blocking orders to prevent judgments

in U.S. courts under the Libertad Act from being

enforced in Canada. The legislation, which entered

into force on January 1, 1997,43 provides that Canada

will not recognize court rulings issued in accordance

with the Libertad Act and will not help collect

judgments issued against Canadian firms; it also

permits targeted Canadian firms to file countersuits

against Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. firms that file

lawsuits under the Libertad Act, and to recoup in

Canadian courts any amounts awarded under such

judgments in the United States.44 On January 22,

1997, the Governments of Canada and Cuba issued a

joint declaration calling for unspecified cooperation

between the two countries to combat the Libertad Act;

the Canadian Government also set forth a bilateral

policy initiative to engage Cuba on the issue of human

rights.45 On October 28, 1996, the EU46 approved a

law providing blocking orders against enforcement of

the Libertad Act, obligating EU companies not to

comply with any U.S. judgments, and permitting EU

companies to sue subsidiaries of U.S. companies for

compensation.47 On December 2, 1996, the EU

Council of Ministers approved a “common position”

on Cuba in which further expansion of EU trade ties

with Cuba are to be linked to an improvement in
161

human rights and progress towards democracy in

Cuba; the EU also agreed to channel humanitarian aid

only through international or nongovernmental

organizations rather than through the Cuban

Government.48 On December 24, 1996 the Cuban

National Assembly approved a law designed to offset

the effects of the Libertad Act.49 The bill declares

“null and void” in Cuba any claim made under the

Libertad Act and prohibits the provision of any

information useful to the United States for application

of the Libertad Act.50

The Libertad Act also became the subject of a

WTO dispute settlement panel during 1996.51 On May

3, 1996, the EU requested bilateral consultations with

the United States on the Libertad Act and other U.S.

legislation regarding trade sanctions against Cuba

under Article XXIII of the GATT.52 The EU complaint

was that the U.S. sanctions against Cuba, and possible

refusal of visas and the exclusion of non-U.S. nationals

from U.S. territory, are inconsistent with the U.S.

obligations under the WTO Agreement and violate

GATT Articles I, III, V, XI, and XIII and GATS

Articles I, III, VI, XXVI, and XVII. The EU also

alleged that even if these U.S. measures do not violate

specific provisions of GATT or GATS, they

nevertheless nullify or impair the EU’s expected

benefits under GATT or GATS.53 The U.S. position

was that the Libertad Act is justified under Article

XXI, which permits a WTO member to take any action

it “considers necessary for its national security

interests.” Following three rounds of consultations, the

EU formally requested that a WTO dispute settlement

panel be established to examine the EU complaint.54

On November 20, 1996, the WTO Dispute Settlement

Body agreed to establish such a panel.55

By late December 1996, in addition to the two

companies already sanctioned under title IV, 12 foreign

companies were under investigation for trafficking in

U.S.-claimed properties; 12 other companies reportedly

had ceased using, or refrained from planned activities,

on properties in Cuba covered under the Libertad

Act.56 The United States also reiterated its policy of

seeking to discourage investment in Cuba.57 To ensure

that any investments that are made benefit the Cuban

people, and not the Cuban Government, the United

States promoted the adoption of “best business

practices” in Cuba by European and North American

business associations; those practices include respect

for internationally recognized labor rights, safe

workplaces, nondiscriminatory employment, protection

of the environment, employers’ right to hire and pay

workers directly, and workers’ right to organize.58

On January 3, 1997, President Clinton suspended

the right to file suit pursuant to title III of the Libertad

Act for an additional six months (until August 1,

1997); title IV of the Libertad Act remained in force.59

The EU continued to press for more permanent relief

from title III and an end to title IV of the Libertad

Act.60 Although the WTO had agreed to establish a

panel to hear the EU complaint about the Libertad Act

in November 1996, the members of that panel were not

named until February 20, 1997. The 3-member panel

includes jurists from Singapore, Switzerland, and New

Zealand. After the panel was formed, the United States

reported that it would not participate in the panel’s

proceedings because in the U.S. view the WTO panel

lacked “competence to proceed” on a matter of U.S.

foreign policy.61 The United States viewed “with

disappointment” the appointment of the WTO panel

because the issue reflects “U.S. foreign policy and

security concerns with respect to Cuba.”62 Moreover,

the U.S. position was that its “actions are not motivated

by protectionism, nor have they ever been for

commercial gain for the United States at the expense of

other countries,” and that “by bringing noncommercial

matters into the WTO, the EU may well jeopardize

what we and others have worked so hard to achieve.”63

On April 11, 1997, the United States and the EU

reached a settlement under which both sides agreed to

work cooperatively to develop binding disciplines on

dealings in property confiscated in Cuba. As part of

this settlement, the EU suspended the WTO panel—but

retained the right to reinstate it should a mutually

satisfactory agreement not be concluded bilaterally

with the United States by October 15, 1997. European

Commission Vice President Sir Lean Brittan reiterated

that the EU “continue[s] to oppose the principle of

extraterritorial laws.”64 For its part, the U.S.

administration pledged to work with Congress to draft

and implement legislation to amend the Libertad Act to

authorized the President to grant waivers under the title

IV of the Act once the bilateral consultations with the

EU are completed and the EU has adhered to these

agreed disciplines.65

Iran and Libya Sanctions

Act of 1996

On August 5, 1996, President Clinton signed into

law the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996.66 The

President announced that the goal of the Act is:

to build on what we’ve already done to isolate

those regimes by imposing tough penalties on

foreign companies that go forward with new

investments in key sectors. The act will help to
162

deny them the money they need to finance

international terrorism or to acquire weapons

of mass destruction. It will increase the

pressure on Libya to extradite the suspects in

the bombing of Pan Am 103.67

This Act tightens, but does not supersede, existing

U.S. economic sanctions against Iran and Libya (those

sanctions are described in more detail below) by

requiring the President to impose sanctions (1) on any

U.S. or foreign person or company, including a parent

or subsidiary, that directly and significantly contributes

to the enhancement of the ability of Iran or Libya to

develop the petroleum resources of these countries

(applies to an investment68 of $40 million or more or

to any combination of investments of at least $10

million each which equals or exceeds $40 million

during any 12-month period) and (2) on persons

providing certain goods and services to Libya in

violation of certain UN Security Council resolutions, if

the provision of such items significantly and materially

contribtes to Libya’s ability to acquire chemical,

biological, or nuclear weapons or destabilizing

numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons,

contributes to Libya’s ability to develop its petroleum

resources, or contributes to Libya’s ability to maintain

its aviation capabilities.69

The President has the authority to impose any two

or more of the following sanctions: (1) a ban on

Export-Import Bank assistance; (2) a ban on export

licenses under the Export Administration Act of 1979,

the Arms Export Control Act; the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, or any other statute that requires prior review

and approval of the U.S. Government; (3) a ban on

loans exceeding $10 million per year by U.S. financial

institutions; (4) a ban on designation as a primary

dealer in U.S. Government debt and/or a ban on U.S.

Government procurement; and (5) a ban on imports of

products selected by the President.70 Sanctions are to

remain in place for a minimum of two years; however,

after one year, the sanctions may be lifted if the

President determines that the sanctioned person or

persons have ceased engagement in the prohibited

activities and have provided assurances that they will

no longer knowingly engage in such activities.71

Because the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996

will apply U.S. economic and trade sanctions to any

U.S. or foreign individual or company who violates its

provisions, a number of foreign countries have

objected to implementation and enforcement of the

Act. While there are no UN-sponsored sanctions

against either Iran or Libya, only a small number of

countries maintain trade relations with those two

countries—albeit at very low volumes of trade.

However, a number of countries object to the Act on

principle because of its extraterritorial provisions. On

August 8, 1996, the United States received a demarche

on the Act from the European Commission delegation.

The EU representatives stated that “[t]he

extra-territorial character of the Iran and Libya

Sanctions Act of 1996 provides for sanctions to be

taken against foreign companies for business activities

that are legal under their national law as well as under

public international law.”72

Iran

U.S. economic sanctions against Iran73 were first

enacted in 1979 following the seizure of the U.S.

Embassy in Teheran and the taking of U.S. diplomats

as hostages;74 these economic sanctions were lifted

when the United States and Iran signed the Algiers

Accords on January 19, 1981.75 As a result of Iran’s

continued support for international terrorism and its

aggressive actions against nonbelligerent shipping in

the Persian Gulf, the United States implemented a new

import embargo on Iranian-origin goods and services

in 1987;76 this embargo was further tightened in

1995.77

U.S. economic and trade sanctions enforced against

Iran78 prohibit imports, either directly or through third

countries, of goods or services of Iranian origin,79 and

prohibit U.S. persons from providing financing for

prohibited import transactions. In general, goods,

technology including technical data, or services may

not be exported from the United States to Iran or to the

Government of Iran. U.S. persons may not trade in

Iranian oil or petroleum products refined in Iran,

finance such trade, or perform services or supply goods

or technology that would benefit the Iranian oil

industry. New investments by U.S. persons, including

loans, commitments of funds or other assets,

extensions of credits, and other financial dealings

involving Iran are prohibited; U.S. persons, including

foreign branches of U.S. banks and trading companies,

are prohibited from engaging in any transactions

related to goods or services of Iranian origin or owned

or controlled by the Government of Iran.80

Libya

U.S. economic sanctions against Libya81 were first

established in January 1986 following terrorist attacks

against the Rome and Vienna airports in December

1985.82 In 1992, the UN Security Council approved a

resolution directing members to apply certain

economic and diplomatic sanctions against Libya;83 in

1993, citing “the continued failure by the Libyan
163

Government to demonstrate by concrete actions its

renunciation of terrorism,” the UN Security Council

directed member states to freeze funds and financial

resources in their control directly or indirectly held by

the Government of Libya and Libyan entities except

funds derived from the sale of petroleum and

petroleum products, natural gas and natural gas

products, and agricultural products provided that such

funds were paid into separate bank accounts.84

U.S. economic and trade sanctions against Libya85

provide that no goods, technology, or services may be

exported from the United States to Libya either directly

or through third countries.86 No U.S. bank or foreign

branch of a U.S. bank may finance, or arrange offshore

financing for, third-country trade transactions where

Libya is known to have an interest in the trade as its

ultimate beneficiary, including brokering third-country

sales of Libyan crude oil or transportation for Libyan

cargo. Permissible trade involving Libya includes,

under certain conditions, the sale of parts and

components to third countries where the U.S. goods

will be substantially transformed into new and different

articles, and the sale of goods which come to rest in the

inventory of a third-country distributor whose sales are

not predominantly to Libya. Goods or services of

Libyan origin may not be imported into the United

States either directly or through third countries.

Contracts benefitting Libya (including contracts for

commercial, governmental, or industrial projects),

loans, and financial dealings involving Libya are

prohibited, although certain independent transactions

by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms with Libya are

permitted if no U.S. person or permanent resident has a

role. U.S. individuals or organizations may be subject

to civil or criminal prosecution if they transact business

with individuals or organizations who act on behalf of

the Government of Libya anywhere in the world. All

Government of Libya assets in the United States or in

the possession or control of U.S. persons anywhere in

the world have been blocked since 1986, and all

transfers of Libyan governmental assets prohibited

without a specific license from OFAC.87

Other Trade Sanctions

Activity

Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996

On April 24, 1996, President Clinton signed into

law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996.88 Section 321 of the Act makes it a criminal

offense for U.S. persons to engage in certain financial

transactions with the Governments of Cuba, Iran, Iraq,

and Libya, North Korea,89 Sudan,90 and Syria,91 except

as provided in regulations issued by the Secretary of

the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of

State. Those countries are designated under section

6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50

U.S.C. App. 2405) as supporting international

terrorism (so-called “Terrorism List Governments”).

The 1996 Act added Sudan and Syria to the list,

prohibiting United States persons from receiving

unlicensed donations and from engaging in financial

transactions with respect to which the United States

person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that

the financial transaction poses a risk of furthering

terrorist acts in the United States. (However, unlike

the restrictions on Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North

Korea, the United States does not have a total embargo

on trade with Sudan and Syria.) The regulations also

provide that the United States may grant exceptions to

these prohibitions through issuance of either general or

specific licenses;92 one such exemption was granted

during 1996.93

Sea Turtle Conservation:

Shrimp

To protect and conserve sea turtles that may be

inadvertently captured during shrimp harvests, the

United States prohibits imports of shrimp from

countries that harvest using commercial fishing

technology (i.e., commercial shrimp trawling) that may

adversely affect sea turtles subject to U.S. protective

regulations, unless the harvesting country adopts and

enforces—and is so certified by the U.S. Department

of State—a program comparable to the U.S. program

to protect such turtles.94 The main element of the U.S.

program is the required use of turtle excluder devices

(TEDs) on commercial shrimp trawl vessels operating

where there is a chance of incidental taking of turtles;

the excluder devices provide an opening that allows

sea turtles to escape from shrimp trawls with minimal

loss of shrimp catch. This requirement initially was

applied only to 14 Caribbean Basin nations;95 on

December 29, 1995, the U.S. Court of International

Trade (CIT) issued an order (in the case of Earth Island

Institute v. Christopher) supporting the contention of

certain environmental groups that Congress intended

the law to apply on a global basis. The order required

the U.S. administration, by May 1, 1996, to prohibit

imports of wild-caught shrimp and shrimp products

(aquiculture shrimp are not affected) from any country

that has endangered sea turtles in its waters and
164

harvests shrimp using commercial trawl vessels, unless

that country is certified by the United States as having

adopted a comparable sea turtle conservation program

by that date.96

On April 30, 1996, the U.S. Department of State

certified 36 countries as meeting the requirements set

forth by section 609 of U.S. Public Law 101-162 for

continued export of wild-caught shrimp to the United

States.97 Shrimp from noncertified countries harvested

in a manner harmful to sea turtles became subject to

embargo beginning May 1, 1996.98 However,

noncertified countries remained eligible to export to

the United States shrimp harvested by aquiculture; by

manual rather than mechanical means; in cold waters,

where sea turtles are not found; and by TEDs (TEDs

used in countries with sea turtle populations must be

certified by the United States; moreover, countries that

have sea turtle populations and commercial shrimp

trawling fleets must require that TEDs be used in order

to be certified unless the harvesting nation can prove

that sea turtles are not adversely affected by its shrimp

trawling operations).99

The CIT issued an order on November 25, 1996 to

clarify and revise an October 8 decision on shrimp

imports from countries not certified under section 609

of Public Law 101-162.100 The November order

authorized imports from noncertified countries of

shrimp harvested in nets that are manually retrieved,

and of shrimp harvested with gear specified in U.S.

domestic regulations, as not requiring the use of TEDs;

it also allowed imports from noncertified countries of

shrimp that live in waters too cold for sea turtles as

well as of fresh water shrimp. By the end of 1996, a

total of 39 countries had been certified under section

609 of Public Law 101-162.101

On October 8, 1996, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and

Thailand filed a WTO complaint against the U.S.

embargo on imports of shrimp and shrimp products

imposed under section 609 of Public Law 101-162,

alleging violations of Articles I, XI, and XIII of the

GATT as well as nullification and impairment of

benefits. The Philippines filed a similar WTO

complaint on October 25, 1996. These disputes

remained in the WTO consultations phase at the end of

1996.102

Also during 1996, the United States and a number

of Latin American and Caribbean countries

participated in negotiations for an Inter-American

Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea

Turtles;103 an agreement, which establishes

multilateral standards for the protection of endangered

species of sea turtles in the Western Hemisphere, was

concluded on September 5, 1996.104

Marine Mammal Protection:

Yellowfin Tuna

Since 1990, the United States has placed an

embargo on certain imported yellowfin tuna and

products derived from yellowfin tuna from certain

countries. This embargo is enforced pursuant to the

1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and its

amendments.105 MMPA seeks to protect marine

mammals106 by prohibiting yellowfin tuna imports

from countries that harvest the tuna through the use of

purse seine nets that encircle dolphins or other marine

mammals. The United States prohibits imports of

yellowfin tuna or products derived from yellowfin tuna

from countries that harvest tuna in the Eastern Tropical

Pacific Ocean unless the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries makes an affirmative finding that the

country has (1) a marine mammal regulatory program

and fleet performance comparable to the United States,

or (2) implemented regulations to prohibit its vessels

from intentionally deploying purse seine nets to

encircle marine mammals. Imports of yellowfin tuna

and tuna products from Mexico,107 Colombia, Panama,

Vanuatu, and Venezuela were subject to embargo

during 1996; imports of all tuna and tuna products

from Costa Rica, Italy, and Japan also were subject to

U.S. embargo during 1996. In November 1996, Belize

was added to the list of countries subject to the

embargo on imports of yellowfin tuna.108 In late

November 1996, the United States and other members

of the International Convention for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) approved a provision

authorizing members to ban imports of bluefin tuna

from Belize, Honduras, and Panama—countries

ICCAT had found which fail to take action to protect

marine mammals. ICCAT also authorized members to

ban imports from countries that violate catch limits on

swordfish in the North Atlantic and bluefin tuna

anywhere in the Atlantic Ocean and in the

Mediterranean Sea.109
165

ENDNOTES

1 In this report, the term “trade sanction” applies

to actions undertaken (1) to restrict or prohibit U.S.

trade with designated hostile and pariah countries to

further U.S. foreign policy and national security

objectives and (2) to prohibit trade pursuant to U.S.

statutory commitments to conserve endangered

species. Also considered are certain actions to

prohibit U.S. persons or entities from engaging in

financial transactions (such as investment and trade

finance) that could facilitate international trade by

designated hostile and pariah countries. For

additional information on U.S. trade sanctions

activities against major trading partners in the context

of bilateral relations, see ch. 4; measures undertaken

pursuant to section 301 are discussed in ch. 5.

2 The basic authorizing statutes are the Trading

with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1-44);

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50

U.S.C. sec. 1701-06); Iraqi Sanctions Act (Public Law

101-513, 104 Stat. 2047-55); United Nations

Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c); International

Security and Development Cooperation Act (22

U.S.C. 2349 aa-9); The Cuban Democracy Act (22

U.S.C. 6001-10); The Cuban Liberty and Democratic

Solidarity Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-114); and The

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(Public Law 104-132).

3 The United States applies criminal penalties

(prison terms and/or monetary penalties) for

violations under these regulations. In addition, OFAC

has the authority to impose civil monetary penalties

for certain violations. Civil monetary penalties, which

are to be adjusted for inflation at least once every

four years, currently are—$55,000 for violations

under the Trading with the Enemy Act; $11,000 for

violations under the International Emergency

Economic Powers Act; and $275,000 for violations

under the Iraqi Sanctions Act. OFAC also has the

authority to impose civil monetary penalties for

banking transactions under the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act. U.S. Department of the

Treasury, OFAC, “Foreign Assets Control Regulations

for Exporters and Importers, Jan. 15, 1997, found at

OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

4 Following the adoption of UN Security Council

Resolution 757 of May 30, 1992 and subsequent

resolutions directing member states to impose

economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia, the United States applied economic

sanctions pursuant to Executive Orders No. 12808 of

May 30, 1992, 12810 of June 5, 1992, 12831 of Jan.

15, 1993, and 12846 of Apr. 25, 1993. The Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and

Bosnian Serb-Controlled Areas of the Republic of

Bosnia and Herzegovina Sanctions Regulations (31

CFR 585) implement these measures. U.S.

Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Federal Republic

of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and Bosnian

Serb-Controlled Areas of the Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina Sanctions Regulations; Partial

Suspension of Sanctions,” 61 F.R. 1282, and UN

Security Council Resolution 1022 of Nov. 22, 1995.

5 For more detailed information about specific

provisions of these economic sanctions as they were

implemented beginning in 1992, see U.S. Department

of the Treasury, OFAC, “Yugoslavia: What You Need

to Know About the U.S. Embargo,” Aug. 22, 1996,

found at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

6 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC,

“Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro) and Bosnian Serb-Controlled Areas of

the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Sanctions

Regulations; Partial Suspension of Sanctions,” 61

F.R. 1282, and UN Security Council Resolution 1022

of Nov. 22, 1995.

7 President, “Presidential Determination No. 96-7

of Dec. 27, 1995,” 61 F.R. 2885.

8 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC,

“Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro) and Bosnian Serb-Controlled Areas of

the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Sanctions

Regulations; Partial Suspension of Sanctions, 61 F.R.

1282.

9 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC,

“Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro) and Bosnian Serb-Controlled Areas of

the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Sanctions

Regulations; Suspension of Sanctions Against the

Bosnian Serbs,” 61 F.R. 24696.

10 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC,

“Yugoslavia: What You Need to Know About the U.S.

Embargo,” Aug. 22, 1996, found at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

11 The United States has no diplomatic relations

with Iraq. U.S. Department of State, “Near East and

North Africa: Diplomatic Relations,” found at U.S.

Department of State website,

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/relations.html.

12 Economic and trade sanctions against Iraq are

set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 661 of

Aug. 6, 1990, Resolution 687 of Apr. 3, 1991, and

subsequent resolutions. UN, “Sanctions Committee

Agrees on Export-Import Mechanism for Iraq,” press

release SC/6137, 1K/184, Dec. 6, 1995.

13 President George Bush, Executive Order No.

12722, Aug. 2, 1990. In keeping with UN Security

Council Resolution 661 of Aug. 6, 1990 and the

United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c),

President Bush also issued Executive Order 12724

on Aug. 9, 1990, which imposed additional

restrictions. The Iraqi Sanctions Regulations (31

CFR part 575) implement Executive Orders No.

12722 and 12724. These measures were most

recently extended by President Clinton, “Notice of

July 22, 1996—Continuation of Iraqi Emergency,” 61

F.R. 38559.

14 The Iraqi Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR 575)

implement these measures. Criminal penalties for

violations of these sanctions range up to 12 years in

prison and $1,000,000 in fines. Ibid.
166

15 An exemption to these resolutions was made

to permit Jordan, which has limited energy resources,

to obtain crude oil and petroleum products from Iraq

in exchange for food and medicine. UN, “Sanctions

Committee Agrees on Export-Import Mechanism for

Iraq,” press release SC/6137, 1K/184, Dec. 6, 1995.

16 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Q’s and

A’s on UNSCR 986,” message reference No. 244800,

Washington, DC, Nov. 27, 1996.

17 UN Security Council Resolution 778 of October

2, 1992 directed UN member states to transfer to a

UN escrow account any funds (up to $200 million

apiece) representing Iraqi oil sale proceeds paid by

purchasers after the imposition of UN sanctions

against Iraq, to finance Iraq’s obligations for UN

activities with respect to Iraq, such as expenses to

verify Iraqi weapons destruction, to provide

humanitarian assistance in Iraq on a nonpartisan

basis, and to fund the activities of the UN

Compensation Commission in Geneva, which handles

claims from victims of the Iraqi invasion and

occupation of Kuwait. President, “Letter to

Congressional Leaders on Iraq,” Presidential

Documents: Administration of William J. Clinton, Aug.

14, 1996, p. 1450.

18 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Q’s and

A’s on UNSCR 986,” message reference No. 244800,

Washington, DC, Nov. 27, 1996.

19 The MOU sets out in detail the rights of the

UN personnel and UN-appointed inspection agents

tasked with implementing Resolution 986 inside Iraq,

and the obligations of the Iraqi Government. It

reaffirms the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee’s

obligations to monitor and approve sales of Iraqi

petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq

under Resolution 986. It also requires that

independent observers monitor Iraqi oil exports at

three designated sites: at Ceyhan in Turkey, Mina

al-Bakr in Iraq, and a site on the Iraq-Turkey border.

For further information, see President, “Letter to

Congressional Leaders on Iraq,” Presidential

Documents: Administration of William J. Clinton,

1996, Aug. 14, 1996, p. 1450 and U.S. Department

of State telegram, “Q’s and A’s on UNSCR 986,”

message reference No. 244800, Washington, DC,

Nov. 27, 1996.

20 The Distribution Plan was mandated by the

MOU and included a categorized list of the items to

be purchased, and provided details on how those

items are to be distributed throughout Iraq. It gave

responsibility for distributing humanitarian supplies in

northern Iraq to the UN, while distribution in the rest

of Iraq is to be carried out by Iraqi officials with UN

observers in place to ensure that distribution is

equitable. U.S. Department of State telegram, “Q’s

and A’s on UNSCR 986,” message reference No.

244800, Washington, DC, Nov. 27, 1996.

21 Ibid.

22 UN, “Daily Press Briefing of Office of

Spokesman for Secretary-General,” Nov. 27, 1996.

23 UN, Department of Public Information, Central

News Section, Daily Highlights, Dec. 9, 1996.

24 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iraqi

Sanctions Regulations; Executory Contracts with the

Government of Iraq,” 61 F.R. 36627.

25 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iraq:

What You Need to Know About the U.S. Embargo,”

Jan. 15, 1997, found at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

26 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iraqi

Sanctions Regulations; Licensing of Performance on

Certain Contracts With the Government of Iraq; Final

Rule,” 61 F.R. 65311.

27 U.S. Department of Commerce, International

Trade Administration, “Frequently Asked Questions

Regarding the Products List,” found at U.S.

Department of Commerce website,

http:/ita.doc.gov/mena/UNSCR986/html.

28 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iraq:

What You Need to Know About the U.S. Embargo,”

Dec. 10, 1996, found at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

29 The United States has had no diplomatic

relations with Cuba since 1961. U.S. Department of

State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Background Notes:

Cuba, November 1994.

30 The Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31

CFR Part 515) implement these measures.

31 Criminal penalties for violating the sanctions

range up to 10 years in prison, $100,000 in

corporate and $250,000 in individual fines. For more

detailed information, see U.S. Department of the

Treasury, OFAC, “Cuba: What You Need to Know

About the U.S. Embargo,” Aug. 8, 1996, found at

OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

32 Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, Public Law

102-484, title XVII, 106 Stat. 2757, 22 U.S.C. 6005.

33 Public Law 101-114, 110 Stat. 785 (22 U.S.C.

6021 et seq.). Frequently referred to with reference

to the two members of Congress who were the main

sponsors of the legislation, Senator Jesse Helms

(R-North Carolina) and Representative Dan Burton

(R-Indiana).

34 U.S. property nationalized by the Cuban

Government was valued at approximately $1.8 billion

in 1962. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public

Affairs, Background Notes: Cuba, November 1994.

35 For additional information, see U.S.

Department of State, “Fact Sheet: Implementation of

the Libertad Act,” U.S. Department of State Dispatch,

vol. 7, no. 15 (Aug. 8, 1996), p. 188.

36 U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Appointment of Special Representative of the

President and Secretary of State for the Promotion of

Democracy in Cuba,” message reference No.

171344, Washington, DC, Aug. 17, 1996.

37 Robert S. Greenberger, “U.S. Holds Up Cuba

Suits, Pleasing Few,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 6,

1997, p. A9.

38 U.S. Department of State telegram, “NAFTA

Consultations on Libertad Act: Canadian Delegation

and Objectives,” message reference No. 01848,

prepared by U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, Apr. 18, 1996

and “Helms-Burton: Proposed Date for Second
167

Round of NAFTA Consultations Acceptable to

Canada,” message reference No. 02307, prepared by

U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, May 16, 1996.

39 U.S. Department of State telegram, “EU

Appreciates Helms-Burton Briefing; Remains Highly

Critical of U.S. Policy,” message reference No.

05002, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Brussels, May

28, 1996.

40 U.S. Department of State telegram, “OECD:

Trade Committee Delegation Report, May 2-3, 1996,”

message reference No. 10510, Paris, May 14, 1996.

41 U.S. Department of State telegram, “OECD:

Helms-Burton Debate at November 14 Joint Meeting

of the Committee on Capital Movements and Invisible

Transactions and the Committee on Investment and

Multinational Enterprises,” message reference No.

26642, prepared by U.S. Embassy, Paris, Nov. 22,

1996.

42 For more information on the Canadian and

Mexican positions, see the discussions of Canada

and Mexico in ch. 4.

43 “Canadian Law to Counter Helms-Burton Act,”

Journal of Commerce, Jan. 2, 1779, p. 3A.

44 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Canada

Moves to Strengthen Its Anti-Helms-Burton

Legislation,” message reference No. 04158, prepared

by U.S. Embassy, Ottawa, Sept. 17, 1996 and

“Cuban Legislative Panel Approves $Antidote’ to the

Helms-Burton Law,” Journal of Commerce,

Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, Comtex

Scientific Corporation, NewsEDGE/LAN, Dec. 24,

1996.

45 Lloyd Axworthy, Foreign Minister of Canada,

“Newsmaker with Lloyd Axworthy,” interview by

Margaret Warner, Jan. 23, 1997, television transcript,

Public Broadcasting System (PBS), found at PBS

website,

http://www1.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/january

97/canada_1-23.html.

46 For more information on the EU position, see

the discussion of the EU in ch. 4.

47 “EU Adopts Regulation in Defense Against

Helms-Burton Act,” European Union News, no. 62/96

(Oct. 29, 1996). The final text was formally adopted

on November 22, 1996. U.S. Department of State,

“Helms-Burton: EU in Holding Pattern,” message

reference No. 10074, prepared by U.S. Embassy,

Brussels, Nov. 26, 1996.

48 “European Union Spells Out Cuba Policy,”

European Union News, no. 72/96 (Dec. 3, 1996).

49 “Aprobada Ley de Reafirmación de la Dignidad

y Soberanía Cubana,” Granma, Dec. 25, 1996, p. 3.

50 Pascal Fletcher, “Havana’s Assault on U.S.

Sanctions Law,” Financial Times, Dec. 27, 1996, p.

4.

51 For more information on WTO dispute

settlement panels, see the discussion of the WTO in

ch. 1.

52 U.S. Department of State telegram, “EU WTO

Article XXIII Consultations Request on Cuba Libertad

Act,” message reference No. 04290, prepared by

U.S. Embassy, Brussels, May 1, 1996 and “Active

WTO Panels,” WTO, Dec. 4, 1996, found at WTO

website, http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm.

53 “Active WTO Panels,” WTO, Jan. 1, 1997,

found at WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm.

54 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Dispute Settlement Body Meeting, 16 October 1996:

Instructions,” message reference No. 216686,

Washington, DC, Oct. 17, 1996 and “EU to Move

Helms-Burton to WTO Dispute Settlement Panel,”

European Union News, no. 55/96 (Oct. 1, 1996).

55 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Dispute Settlement Body Meeting of 20 November

1996,” message reference No. 09010, prepared by

U.S. Embassy, Geneva, Nov. 25, 1996.

56 “Eizenstat on Helms-Burton Waiver,” U.S.

Department of State, press conference transcript,

Jan. 3, 1997.

57 U.S. Department of State telegram, “President

Renews Suspension of Right to File Suit Under Title

III of Helms-Burton,” message reference No. 03475,

Washington, DC, Jan. 8, 1997.

58 Ibid.

59 “Fact Sheet: President’s Title III Decision on

Helms-Burton Act,” White House, Office of the Press

Secretary, Jan. 3, 1997.

60 Robert S. Greenberger, “Washington Will

Boycott WTO Panel,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 21,

1997, p. A2.

61 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Press

Guidance on WTO Panel Members for Helms Burton

Case,” message reference No. 33098, Washington,

DC, Feb. 22, 1997.

62 Stuart Eizenstat, Under Secretary of

Commerce, Briefing Given in Washington on Clinton

Administration Position on the EU’s WTO Challenge

to the Libertad Act, Feb. 20, 1997, found at USIA

website,

http://www.usia.gov/topical/econ/libertad/libwto.htm.

63 Ibid.

64 U.S. Department of State telegram, “U.S.-EU

Helms-Burton Deal: Statement by Brittan,” message

reference No. 02721, prepared by U.S. Mission to

the EU, Brussels, Apr. 15, 1997.

65 U.S. Department of State telegram, “Text of

Special Envoy Eizenstat’s April 11 Statement on

U.S.-European Commission Agreement on Libertad

(Helms-Burton) Act,” message reference No. 68456,

prepared by U.S. Department of State, Washington,

DC, Apr. 12, 1997

66 Public Law 104-172 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note).

67 President Clinton, “Remarks by the President

On American Security in a Changing World,” The

White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Aug. 5,

1996 (press release).

68 Additional information to clarify certain terms is

provided in a separate Federal Register notice.

Specifically, the term “investment” does not include

the entry into, performance, or financing of a contract

to sell or purchase goods, services, or technology.

This Act applies only to investments entered into on

or after the date of enactment of the Act and not to
168

existing contracts and investments entered into prior

to the date of enactment. For further information,

see U.S. Department of State, “Additional Information

for the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act,” 61 F.R. 66067.

69 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, sec.

5(a)-(c).

70 Ibid., sec. 6.

71 Ibid., sec. 9(b).

72 U.S. Department of State telegram, “August 8

Demarche by EU on Iran and Libya Sanctions Act,”

message reference No. 167638, Washington, DC,

Aug. 13, 1996.

73 The United States has no diplomatic relations

with Iran. U.S. Department of State, “Near East and

North Africa: Diplomatic Relations,” found at U.S.

Department of State website,

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/relations.html.

74 Some $12 billion in Iranian Government bank

deposits, gold, and other properties were frozen

under the Iranian Assets Control Regulations (Title

31 Part 535 CFR); the assets freeze eventually was

expanded to a full trade embargo. U.S. Department

of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iran: What You Need to

Know About the U.S. Embargo,” Oct. 22, 1996, found

at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

75 Claims by U.S. nationals against Iran or

Iranian entities for products shipped or services

rendered before the onset of the 1979 embargo or

for losses sustained in Iran due to expropriation

during that time are still being litigated in the

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague

established under the Algiers Accords. U.S.

Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iran: What You

Need to Know About the U.S. Embargo,” Oct. 22,

1996, found at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

76 President, Executive Order 12613 of Oct. 28,

1987. The Iranian Transactions Regulations (31 CFR

560) implement these measures. Criminal penalties

for violating the sanctions range up to 10 years in

prison, $500,000 in corporate and $250,000 in

individual fines. U.S. Department of the Treasury,

OFAC, “Iran: What You Need to Know About the

U.S. Embargo,” Oct. 22, 1996, found at OFAC

website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

77 As a result of Iranian sponsorship of

international terrorism and its active pursuit of

weapons of mass destruction, President Clinton

issued two Executive Orders in 1995 prohibiting U.S.

involvement with petroleum development in Iran and

substantially tightening sanctions against Iran.

President Clinton, “Prohibiting Certain Transactions

With Respect to the Development of Iranian

Petroleum Resources,” Executive Order 12957, White

House press release, Mar. 15, 1995 and “Prohibiting

Certain Transactions with Respect to Iran,” Executive

Order 12959, White House press release, May 8,

1995.

78 For the most recent Notice to continue

economic sanctions against Iran, see President,

“Notice of October 29, 1996—Continuation of Iran

Emergency,” 61 F.R. 56107.

79 Other than gifts valued at $100 or less and

Iranian origin publications and materials imported for

news publications or news broadcast dissemination.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iran: What

You Need to Know About the U.S. Embargo,” Oct.

22, 1996, found at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

80 There is an exception for feed grains, rice,

wheat, cotton, peanuts, tobacco, dairy products, and

oilseeds, provided that the underlying trade contract

for their exportation was in place prior to May 7,

1995, and delivery occurred prior to Feb. 2, 1996,

pursuant to the terms of the original contract. In

addition, donations of articles intended to relieve

human suffering (such as food, clothing, and

medicine), gifts valued at $100 or less, and articles

such as certain publications, films, photographs,

microfilms, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artwork,

and news wire feeds are permitted. U.S. Department

of the Treasury, OFAC, “Iran: What You Need to

Know About the U.S. Embargo,” Oct. 22, 1996, found

at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

81 Although U.S. diplomatic relations with Libya

have not been formally severed, relations with Libya

were reduced in 1981 to the lowest level consistent

with the maintenance of diplomatic relations, and

there has been no bilateral dialogue with the

Government of Libya since that time. U.S.

Department of State, “Near East and North Africa:

Diplomatic Relations,” found at U.S. Department of

State website,

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/relations.html.

82 Criminal penalties for violating the sanctions

range up to 10 years in prison, $500,000 in

corporate and $250,000 in individual fines. The

Libyan Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR 550)

implement these measures. U.S. Department of the

Treasury, OFAC, “Libya: What You Need to Know

About the U.S. Embargo,” Oct., 23, 1996, found at

OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

83 Among other things, those sanctions directed

UN members to prohibit transfers of all types of

military arms and equipment to Libya; to significantly

reduce their diplomatic missions and consular posts

in Libya; to deny permission to any aircraft to take

off from, land in, or overfly their territory if it is

destined to land in or has taken off from Libya; and

to prevent the operation of all Libyan Arab Airlines

offices. These actions were taken because of

Libya’s failure to cooperate with the United States

and the United Kingdom in the extradition of Libyans

suspected in the bombing of Pan Am flight 107, and

with France in the investigation of the bombing of a

UTA flight 772. UN Security Council, Resolution 731

of Jan. 21, 1992, and Resolution 748 of Mar. 31,

1992.

84 UN Security Council Resolution 883 of Nov.

11, 1993.

85 For the most recent Notice to continue

economic sanctions against Libya, see President,

“Notice of January 2, 1997—Continuation of Libyan

Emergency,” 62 F.R. 585.

86 There is an exception for merchandise up to

$100 in value in non-commercial quantities brought
169

for strictly personal use as accompanied baggage by

an authorized traveler or sent as a gift, information

materials, such as books, magazines, films, and

recordings and donated articles such as food,

clothing, medicine, and medical supplies intended to

relieve human suffering. U.S. Department of the

Treasury, OFAC, “Libya: What You Need to Know

About the U.S. Embargo,” Oct., 23, 1996, found at

OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

87 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC,

“Libya: What You Need to Know About the U.S.

Embargo,” Oct., 23, 1996, found at OFAC website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

88 Public Law 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214-1319, 18

U.S.C. 1 note.

89 Regulations authorizing U.S. trade sanctions

against North Korea date to the year 1950. Although

recently modified as a result of commitments made

to begin normalization of relations, the regulations

are still in force and affect all U.S. citizens and

permanent residents wherever they are located, all

people and organizations physically in the United

States, and all branches, subsidiaries, and controlled

affiliates of U.S. organizations worldwide. For further

information, see U.S. Department of the Treasury,

OFAC, “North Korea: What You Need to Know About

the U.S. Embargo, Oct. 23, 1996, found at OFAC

website,

http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/services/fac/fac.html.

During 1995 and 1996, the United States provided,

through UN agencies, medical supplies and food to

help alleviate civilian suffering that resulted from

lower crop production and severe weather in parts of

North Korea. Testimony of Mark Minton, Director of

the Office of Korean Affairs, before the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on East

Asian and Pacific Affairs, Washington, DC, Sept. 12,

1996, found at U.S. Department of State website,

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eap/minton.html.

90 Multilateral and primarily diplomatic sanctions

against Sudan, in light of that country’s continued

sponsorship of international terrorism and role as a

safe haven for terrorist groups, including terrorists

allegedly linked to a 1995 assassination attempt

against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, were

implemented by UN Security Council Resolution 1054

of Apr. 26, 1996 and Resolution 1070 of Aug. 16,

1996. Those resolutions directed UN member states

to: reduce the level of diplomatic representation in

Sudan, restrict entry of transit of officials of the

Government and armed forces of Sudan; not

convene any conference in Sudan; and deny entry,

exit, or overflight of any aircraft registered in Sudan

or substantially owned or controlled by entities in

Sudan.

91 U.S. trade sanctions against Syria date to

1979 as a response to that country’s involvement

with international terrorism. Sanctions were

expanded in 1986, following Syria’s implication in the

attempted bombing of an Israeli airliner at London’s

Heathrow Airport. Among the affected items are

exports of aircraft, aircraft parts, and computers of

U.S. origin or containing U.S.-origin components and

technology. Under the 1986 sanctions, Syria is

ineligible for the U.S. export enhancement program

and the commodity credit corporation program for all

agricultural products. A Syrian-U.S. bilateral aviation

agreement expired in 1987 and has not been

renewed; Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private

Investment Corporation (OPIC) loan and insurance

programs in Syria also have been suspended since

that time. U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Syria’s 1997 Trade Act Report,” message reference

No. 05963, Damascus, Nov. 17, 1996.

92 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC,

“Terrorism List Governments Sanctions Regulations;

Implementation of Section 321 of the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” 61 F.R.

43462.

93 “Press Briefing by Mike McCurry,” The White

House, Office of the Press Secretary, Jan. 23, 1997.

94 Public Law 101-162, title VI, sec. 609, Nov.

21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1037, 16 U.S.C. 1537.

95 For countries with both Caribbean and Pacific

coasts, this requirement was interpreted to apply only

on the Caribbean side. In 1995, Suriname, French

Guiana, and Trinidad and Tobago did not receive

certification, and exports to the United States from

those nations were embargoed; Trinidad and Tobago

eventually received certification in 1995 after

addressing deficiencies in enforcement of its

regulations requiring TEDs. U.S. Department of

State telegram, “Sea Turtle Conservation—Annual

Certification to Congress Under Section 609 of Public

Law 101-162,” message reference No. 011038,

Washington, DC, Jan. 23, 1996.

96 U.S. Department of State telegram, “TEDs

Requirement Extended Worldwide—Shrimp

Embargoes,” message reference No. 02609,

Washington, DC, Jan. 9, 1996.

97 Those 36 certified countries were in three

categories: (1) countries having sea turtle

conservation programs that require the use of TEDs

and are comparable to the U.S. program: Belize,

Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Guyana, Mexico, Indonesia, Nicaragua,

Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela; (2)

countries with shrimping grounds only in cold waters,

where there is no risk of taking sea turtles:

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark,

Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New

Zealand, Norway, Russia, Sweden, United Kingdom,

and Uruguay; and (3) countries that only harvest

shrimp using manual rather than mechanical means

to retrieve nets: The Bahamas, Brunei, Dominican

Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Oman, Peru, and Sri Lanka.

U.S. Department of State telegram, “Worldwide TEDs

Requirement: Certification to Congress Under Section

609 of Public Law 101-162 for the International

Conservation of Sea Turtles,” message reference No.

96327, Washington, DC, May 9, 1996.

98 The U.S. Department of State is authorized to

lift embargoes of countries that have not been

certified if those countries subsequently qualify for

certification at any time during the year, and to

revoke certification for countries whose programs no

longer qualify for certification. Ibid.

99 Such shipments must be accompanied by a

Department of State DSP-121 form signed by the

exporter and certified by a government official of the

harvesting country. Ibid.
170

100 U.S. Department of State telegram, “CIT

Allows Additional Shrimp Imports from Uncertified

Nations,” message reference No. 245689,

Washington, DC, Nov. 28, 1996.

101 Honduras, Thailand, and China were added

to the list of certified countries after the May 1, 1996

annual certification status announcement. U.S.

Department of State telegram, “Worldwide TEDs

Requirement—China Certified,” message reference

No. 260607, Washington, DC, Dec. 23, 1996.

102 “Active WTO Panels,” Jan. 7, 1997, found at

WTO website,

http://www.wto.org/wto/dispute/bulletin.htm. The WTO

dispute settlement panels are discussed in more

detail in ch. 1.

103 In addition to the United States, participating

in the negotiations were The Bahamas, Brazil,

Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Saint

Vincent, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago,

and Venezuela. U.S. Department of State telegram,

“Third Meeting on Western Hemisphere Sea Turtle

Convention, Caracas, April 24-26, 1996,” message

reference No. 99872, Washington, DC, May 14,

1996.

104 U.S. Department of State telegram, “WTO

Turtle/Shrimp Consultations—Follow-Up With

Complainants,” message reference No. 249789,

Washington, DC, Dec. 5, 1996.

105 Public Law 92-522, title III, sec. 305, as

added by Public Law 102-523 sec. 2(a), Oct. 26,

1992, 106 Stat. 3428, 16 U.S.C. 1415.

106 Dolphins, the marine mammals in question,

are air-breathing, and generally swim above tuna.

Purse seine nets dropped to catch tuna often catch

dolphins as well, resulting in their death or maiming.

107 Results of a bilateral effort to bring Mexico’s

tuna fishing standards into compliance with the

MMPA are discussed in more detail in the section on

Mexico in ch. 4.

108 U.S. Department of State, “Embargo of

Belizean ETP Yellowfin Tuna,” message reference

No. 228133, Washington, DC, Nov. 1, 1996.

109 Bruce Odessey, “Import Bans Authorized on

Bluefin Tuna from Three Countries,” USIA

Washington File, Dec. 3, 1996, found at U.S.

Information Agency website,

gopher://198.80.36.82:70/.../archives/1996/pdq.96.
171

APPENDIX

Statistical Tables
e with Canada, by SITC nos. (revision 3), 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

U.S. exports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,106,293 5,301,201 5,499,424

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,064 203,469 232,888

aterials, inedible, except fuels 3,467,934 4,259,158 3,758,615 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 1,251,419 1,414,956 1,851,287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 104,695 124,589 173,639 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 9,415,595 10,360,727 11,334,840 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 13,486,923 15,417,848 16,058,037 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 56,753,360 61,652,333 64,785,287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 11,028,506 11,623,693 11,869,949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 2,852,041 2,903,166 3,558,877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,642,830 113,261,142 119,122,843

U.S. imports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,328,174 5,646,490 6,663,389

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703,823 677,665 750,345

aterials, inedible, except fuels 10,138,360 10,898,443 11,314,720 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 12,501,798 13,665,083 16,775,287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 309,632 339,184 404,754 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 6,679,247 8,126,301 8,530,839 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 20,395,478 25,381,147 25,833,114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 57,940,204 63,645,520 67,327,222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 6,535,452 7,760,633 8,992,086 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 8,221,068 8,741,416 9,706,847 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128,753,235 144,881,881 156,298,602

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
nada by Schedule B number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 4,697,421 4,067,839 4,231,410 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 2,803,956 3,092,099 3,509,281 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of motor vehicles, nesi 3,312,026 3,120,899 3,126,957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 1,854,117 1,962,846 2,413,696 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 1,846,383 2,095,128 2,347,422 . . . . . . . . . . . 

de semiconductors (2) (2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 2,042,655

xes for motor vehicles 2,010,474 2,127,987 2,041,641 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

hicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion

engine, gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 1,703,729 1,711,633 2,027,978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1,230,6343 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,438,221 1,387,637

 spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines, nesi 935,755 846,317 1,094,039 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ocessing units, nesi (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 1,053,101

nd servo-brakes and parts for motor vehicles 871,153 931,266 989,663 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ctors for semi-trailers 1,027,276 1,020,135 789,893 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 662,710 679,482 770,964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ular plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick, of aluminum alloy 693,876 889,408 756,696 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ooks, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, other than in single sheets 720,487 753,069 731,383 . . . . . 

c regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus, nesi. 693,671 794,389 710,810 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

l switches for voltage not exceeding 1,000 v, nesi 498,691 574,127 700,503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

pers, etc. appearing less than 4 times per week 592,804 619,465 631,020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

m oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude 457,271 535,857 620,363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

seats (except medical, barber, dental, etc.) 478,794 640,318 619,510 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ssion-ignition internal-combustion piston engines 687,290 836,374 612,196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gital automated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (5) (5 . . . . . . . . . ) 611,969

nesi, diesel engine, gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 387,030 533,064 575,001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

l of items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,872,376 33,520,119 38,806,105l other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,770,454 79,741,023 80,316,739l all commodities 103,642,830 113,261,142 119,122,843 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued imports.

s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s under this item included products now reported under Schedule B 8473.50 part. s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part. s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Canada, by HTS items, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 17,651,764 20,578,804 19,372,032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

m oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 4,916,983 6,139,318 7,367,016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

us wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, of a thickness

ding 6 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,544,330 4,952,193 6,251,623

cles exported and returned, not advanced or improved in condition;

s exported or returned 5,002,381 5,485,905 5,847,162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

hicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion piston

, gross vehicle weight. not exceeding 5 mt 6,198,105 6,119,187 5,839,170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 3,819,082 2,826,323 5,087,297 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nt, in rolls or sheets 3,296,140 4,371,269 4,019,150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gas, in gaseous state 3,902,744 3,246,194 3,914,607 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of motor-vehicles, nesi 3,513,213 3,120,298 3,198,181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude;

eparations, nesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,574,702 1,680,425 2,482,415

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 12,080,433 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,870,644 2,364,805

de semiconductors (2) (2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 1,809,672

nition reciprocating piston engine, of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,000 cc 1,097,227 986,352 1,712,136 . . . . . . . 

l woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, of semibleached

ched coniferous wood 1,408,898 2,402,625 1,654,302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

etary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 1,427,457 1,256,180 1,631,647 . . . . . . 

d accessories of bodies of motor vehicles, nesi 1,036,101 1,144,186 1,599,083 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 1,252,538 1,425,914 1,530,975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ctors for semi-trailers 1,125,879 1,582,605 1,337,175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ht aluminum alloys 1,089,532 1,219,414 1,187,692 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

esi, over 10% (weight) fiber obtained by a mechanical process 655,028 1,043,735 1,049,533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ht aluminum, not alloyed 995,909 1,306,148 1,032,873 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nimals, live, nesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798,276 862,118 1,000,004

s and aircraft, of unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 kg 688,044 588,733 996,569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

elephonic or telegraphic apparatus 570,314 585,788 902,454 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

l energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960,328 855,698 901,670

tems shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,605,403 76,650,055 84,089,244

er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,147,832 68,231,827 72,209,358

commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128,753,235 144,881,881 156,298,602

s under this item included products now reported under HTS 8473.50 part. s reported under HTS 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued imports.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
e with the European Union, by SITC nos. (revision 3), 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996 

U.S. exports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,047,790 4,647,714 4,745,961

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,701,340 2,777,735 2,575,617

aterials, inedible, except fuels 5,699,411 7,805,881 7,049,765 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 1,939,684 2,520,936 2,697,421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 248,073 290,816 260,594 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi. 12,867,710 14,897,383 15,018,280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 5,915,381 7,950,361 7,864,553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 49,034,079 55,281,021 57,328,374 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 12,974,630 14,573,830 15,106,614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 5,884,876 5,570,285 7,072,131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101,312,973 116,315,962 119,719,310

U.S. imports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,568,761 2,692,243 2,860,308

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,823,439 3,093,861 3,474,811

aterials, inedible, except fuels 1,245,292 1,366,382 1,350,670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 4,962,892 3,703,626 4,254,085 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 271,884 353,750 461,232 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 13,573,819 16,259,157 19,085,053 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 18,239,303 19,008,897 20,026,561 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 51,619,832 59,361,285 62,442,613 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 16,669,193 18,850,594 20,389,556 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 5,669,962 6,145,518 7,109,629 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,644,377 130,835,313 141,454,518

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
 European Union, by Schedule B number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 14,861,526 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,217,129 6,566,543

s and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 4,911,241 3,675,047 3,927,581 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 2,753,071 3,157,807 3,533,272 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 2,538,529 2,937,221 3,097,566 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

etary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 1,937,506 1,211,941 2,426,527 . . . . . . 

s, whether or not broken 1,582,530 2,006,425 2,348,784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of motor vehicles, nesi 1,603,684 2,342,959 2,345,029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gital automated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . 2,137,038

 turbojets and turbopropellers 1,768,375 1,860,525 2,050,435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

its of automated data processing machines (4) (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,912,643

us coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 1,315,137 1,739,033 1,745,058 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 1,255,661 1,092,091 1,514,978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

de semiconductors (5) (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,391,811

es containing tobacco 1,738,660 1,711,912 1,329,419 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, nesi 871,674 905,086 1,057,761 . . . . 

te diagnostic or laboratory reagents, except pharmaceuticals 729,550 888,130 980,463 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 6526,259 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877,150 805,617

s and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 kg 376,322 128,028 750,933 . . . . . . . . . . 

iagnostic apparatus nesi, and parts etc.. 7665,209 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795,988 742,264

c disk drive storage units diameter exceeding 21 cm (8) (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,041

s of starch mfr and similar residues 695,309 690,478 690,102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

needles, nesi, catheters etc. and parts etc. 417,888 479,853 625,393 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s of a thrust exceeding 25 kN 1,377,563 638,551 619,574 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 partly or wholly stemmed or stripped 441,884 540,957 610,060 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ne parts, nesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505,189 552,822 605,805

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,872,767 34,449,132 44,556,696

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,440,206 81,866,830 75,162,614

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101,312,973 116,315,962 119,719,310

s under this item included products now reported under Schedule B 8473.50 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued exports.

s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part. s reported under Schedule B 8471.99 part. s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. 

cts now reported under Schedule B 8479.50 were covered by 8479.89.90.40 in 1994 and 8479.89.95.40 in 1995. Trade data were

ency

s under this item included products now reported elsewhere.s reported under Schedule B 8471.93 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
the European Union, by HTS items, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 4,411,539 5,766,953 6,300,869 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 5,019,476 5,771,437 6,242,758 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cles exported and returned, not advanced or improved in condition; animals

ed or returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,048,646 4,139,393 4,959,995

m oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude. 2,008,864 1,253,320 2,476,395 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 turbojets and turbopropellers 1,642,464 1,804,395 2,268,191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

de semiconductors (1) (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 1,692,771

strial diamonds, nesi 1,329,293 1,352,182 1,501,938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of automated data processing machines and units 1,287,8672 1,795,8472 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,473,023

m oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 2,763,264 2,261,093 1,462,831 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 1,154,195 1,285,327 1,378,694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, drawing and pastels, executed entirely by hand, framed or not framed 1,024,540 1,213,840 1,331,901 . . . . . . . . . . . 

medicaments put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail

esi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958,358 944,141 1,311,324

of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal (excluding silver) 1,289,199 1,282,348 1,310,687 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 1,067,423 1,061,887 1,277,437 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of motor-vehicles, nesi 1,070,245 1,106,516 1,177,007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s of a thrust exceeding 25 kN 2,207,676 1,111,990 1,154,345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 1,479,997 1,370,524 1,133,982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

yclic compounds nesi 293,124 728,793 1,098,064 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

and aircraft, of an unladen weight over 2,000 kg but not over 15,000 kg 1,126,029 967,825 1,069,409 . . . . . . . . . . . 

si of fresh grapes or fortified wine, in containers not over 2 liters 614,479 695,222 838,615 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

c disk drive storage units diameter exceeding 21 cm (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 816,556

its of automated data processing machines (5) (5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 812,560

r, outer sole of rubber, plastics, or leather and leather upper, nesi 548,880 652,373 771,720 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r, outer sole and upper of leather, nesi 568,993 631,352 742,413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

de from malt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609,577 673,532 735,128

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,524,128 37,870,289 45,338,612

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81,120,249 92,965,024 96,115,906ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,644,377 130,835,313 141,454,518

s reported under HTS 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s under this item included products now reported under HTS 8473.50 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued imports. 

s reported under HTS 8471.93 part. s reported under HTS 8471.99 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
e with Japan, by SITC nos. (revision 3), 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

U.S. exports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,908,032 10,397,196 10,795,879

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,181,149 2,182,517 2,051,428

aterials, inedible, except fuels 6,019,942 6,912,015 6,308,149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 861,992 971,920 1,107,921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 104,719 119,791 114,567 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 5,201,033 6,023,907 5,769,207 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 2,920,846 3,776,236 3,758,885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 17,443,971 21,600,126 23,466,945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 6,395,686 7,722,469 9,015,383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 1,024,059 1,255,366 1,196,440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,061,430 60,961,543 63,584,804

U.S. imports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318,456 298,413 279,857

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,014 32,722 34,428

aterials, inedible, except fuels 205,034 222,763 211,687 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 203,350 226,802 180,145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 19,252 19,649 19,222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 4,181,354 5,091,865 5,575,384 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 6,875,872 6,901,462 6,768,200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 93,764,696 97,353,374 89,143,404 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 10,123,786 10,337,852 10,385,310 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 1,807,781 1,917,376 2,164,619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,531,595 122,402,280 114,762,256

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
pan, by Schedule B number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

aize), other than seed corn 1,352,186 1,905,821 2,454,811 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 11,331,012 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,634,852 1,927,463

us wood in the rough, not treated 1,728,365 1,668,956 1,640,238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 1,500 not over 3,000 cc 1,247,148 2,059,662 1,604,034 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

es containing tobacco 1,428,168 1,467,013 1,523,004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 2,156,829 1,496,438 1,375,657 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

de semiconductors (2) (2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 1,265,932

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 826,860 958,177 1,143,732 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, whether or not broken 837,694 983,029 1,142,637 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 3441,117 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762,846 876,988

gital automated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . ) 838,537

bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 620,441 911,976 763,590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 577,367 698,087 745,691 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cept antenna, for transmission, radar, radio, television, etc., nesi 414,351 722,640 735,428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

its of automated data processing machines (6) (6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 656,381

us wood sawn, sliced etc, over 6 mm thick 626,745 620,084 651,846 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd meslin, excluding durum wheat 573,514 511,099 644,957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

bovine animals, boneless, frozen 640,307 663,563 633,658 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ocessing units, nesi (7) (7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 607,563

d accessories of motor vehicles, nesi 236,540 380,247 556,841 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 enriched in U235 plutonium and their compounds, etc 683,183 606,579 554,280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc. 543,773 587,147 536,320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

us coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 391,048 461,280 414,650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 surgical, dental or veterinary sciences instruments, appliances, and parts, nesi 282,877 396,679 405,668 . . . . 

swine, nesi, fresh or chilled 204,913 344,482 375,249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,144,439 19,840,658 24,075,153

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,916,991 41,120,885 39,509,651ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,061,430 60,961,543 63,584,804

s under this item included products now reported under Schedule B 8473.50 part. s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. 

cts now reported under Schedule B 8479.50 were covered by 8479.89.90.40 in 1994 and 8479.89.95.40 in 1995. Trade data were

ency of reporting. 

s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued exports.

s reported under Schedule B 8471.99 part. 

s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Japan, by HTS number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 24,542,425 22,551,851 19,189,833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

de semiconductors (1) (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 6,174,903

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 3,201,129 3,618,119 6,101,828 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 24,269,503 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,558,014 4,375,585

output units of automated data processing machines (3) (3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 4,233,546

c disk drive storage units diameter exceeding 21 cm (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 3,370,690

ge video cameras and other video camera recorders (5) (5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 1,712,237

d accessories of motor-vehicles, nesi 1,528,375 1,552,817 1,475,146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

atic photocopying apparatus, operating by reproducing the original image

intermediate onto the copy (indirect process) 1,413,737 1,570,281 1,376,542 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cles exported and returned, not advanced or improved in condition; animals

ed or returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970,660 1,033,807 1,322,975

mes used with television receiver and parts and accessories 1,064,236 780,642 1,224,379 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 6719,623 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949,858 1,016,430

d accessories of photocopying apparatus 1,114,339 1,010,942 948,755 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

c tape-type video recording or reproducing apparatus 995,236 907,558 811,372 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nition internal-combustion piston engine parts, nesi 707,505 728,457 777,974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine over 1,000 but not over 1,500 cc 1,742,785 1,634,530 771,448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 786,281 828,004 759,186 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

elephonic or telegraphic apparatus 525,969 745,595 750,504 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 430,063 465,370 739,935 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tomated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (8) (8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 704,514

tches, battery, mechanical display, base metal 617,719 627,007 653,728 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

xes for motor vehicles 670,576 742,415 650,966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of bodies of motor vehicles, nesi 651,644 662,772 633,049 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

g centers for working metal 379,977 506,832 586,973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 electronic integrated circuits and microassemblies 413,404 636,718 570,933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,745,186 46,111,587 60,933,433

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,786,409 76,290,693 53,828,823

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,531,595 122,402,280 114,762,256

s reported under HTS 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s under this item included products now reported under HTS 8473.50 part. s reported under HTS 8471.92 part. s reported under HTS 8471.93 part. s reported under HTS 8525.30.90 part. 

cts now reported under HTS 8479.50 were covered by 8479.89.95.40. Trade data were adjusted to insure consistency of

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued imports. 

s reported under HTS 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
e with Mexico, by SITC nos. (revision 3), 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

U.S. exports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,173,114 2,138,786 3,547,511

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,436 73,805 67,654

aterials, inedible, except fuels 2,088,369 2,100,857 2,455,237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 1,009,634 1,275,450 1,504,694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 244,283 362,045 322,546 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 4,359,814 4,211,068 5,062,163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 6,679,912 6,426,529 8,049,697 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 22,840,998 20,068,705 25,080,540 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 6,344,476 5,437,018 6,316,266 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 2,225,009 1,936,892 2,279,557 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,136,046 44,031,155 54,685,865

U.S. imports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,862,953 3,828,492 3,650,835

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332,884 400,955 528,479

aterials, inedible, except fuels 774,197 1,093,025 961,686 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 4,975,874 6,012,906 8,024,077 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 10,434 18,845 22,813 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 1,022,243 1,299,219 1,578,881 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 3,582,623 4,919,612 5,628,895 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 26,480,892 33,208,578 40,596,350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 6,543,989 8,329,981 10,237,485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 2,019,170 2,609,387 2,949,618 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,605,259 61,721,000 74,179,119

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
xico, by Schedule B number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

d “low value” shipments 1,756,361 1,624,591 1,951,768 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of motor vehicles, nesi 1,775,818 1,605,286 1,868,127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

aize), other than seed corn 345,189 364,450 1,011,698 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of bodies (including cabs) of motor vehicles, nesi 1,498,549 1,350,015 1,007,352 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

m and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude . 689,668 764,615 988,223 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

-ray television picture tubes, color, including monitors. 471,568 567,622 917,180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

of plastics, nesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664,476 656,829 880,137

s, whether or not broken 536,717 485,346 858,812 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 2631,536 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599,517 834,572

 electrical apparatus for electrical circuits; for electrical control nesi 368,575 447,577 697,303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d ignition wiring sets for vehicles, ships or aircraft 719,065 557,949 685,678 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-comb reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 354,163 179,264 590,874 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

onolithic integrated circuits (3) (3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 566,752

of iron or steel nesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303,940 385,506 536,455

ircuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192,632 426,788 528,647

l apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, nesi 368,833 493,976 522,885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tegrated circuits (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 494,690

 boxes and cases corrugated paper and paperboard 364,681 442,815 471,489 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  electric transformers, static converters, and inductors 5514,832 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543,527 442,410

seats (except medical, barber, dental, etc.) 402,683 427,819 442,382 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d screws and bolts nesi of iron or steel 196,799 245,759 422,776 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 spark-ignition internal-combustion piston engines, nesi 284,232 387,374 392,166 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

electric motors, generators and sets 311,522 302,755 390,693 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

si, for radar, radio, televison, etc. transmission, except antennas 487,175 571,486 340,256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ocessing units, nesi (6) (6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 337,634

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,239,015 13,430,867 18,180,959

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,897,031 31,449,910 36,504,906ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,136,046 44,880,776 54,685,865

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued exports.

s under this item included products now reported under Schedule B 8473.50 part. s reported under Schedule B 8542.11part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s reported under Schedule B 8542.20 part. 

cts now reported under this item, also were reported under Schedule B 8473.30 part. 

s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Mexico, by HTS items, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

m oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude 4,594,008 5,681,586 7,032,759 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 4,054,241 5,478,466 5,972,387 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets of a kind used in vehicles, aircraft

s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,504,442 2,717,792 3,013,814

ete or unfinished color reception apparatus for televisions (1) (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 2,725,954

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 934,475 871,675 2,267,745 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

hicles for transporting goods, with spark-ignition internal-combustion

engine, gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 523,216 1,297,014 2,176,852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cles exported and returned, not advanced or improved in condition;

s exported or returned 1,471,917 1,923,081 2,043,373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ating spark-ignition piston engines, of a cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc 561,675 1,275,846 1,372,663 . . . . . . . . . . . 

ssion apparatus for radio or television 528,632 806,657 1,081,821 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 digital automated data processing machines not exceeding 10 kg, with at

 CPU, keyboard and display (2) (2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 1,034,153

oadcast receivers for motor vehicles 474,496 918,188 1,005,551 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

seats (except medical, barber, dental, etc.) 721,486 765,097 938,360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 3587,567 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810,082 924,133

nesi, diesel engine, gross vehicle weight not exceeding 5 mt 119,864 466,836 818,695 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cept antenna, for transmission, radar, radio, television, etc., nesi 807,396 874,170 782,156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of motor-vehicles, nesi 488,672 680,803 774,685 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 boys’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts, not knitted or

ted, of cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371,952 593,094 745,376

eat belts for motor vehicles 881,559 646,788 702,186 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

output units for automated data processing machines (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 601,535

s, fresh or chilled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315,448 406,081 580,349

d “low value” shipments 343,085 425,357 498,012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nverters 6322,380 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388,721 480,035

si, of air conditioning machines 240,347 315,754 478,880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ot roasted, not decaffeinated 267,474 508,372 472,674 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s or girls’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts, not knitted or

ted, of cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,493 330,493 451,217

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,334,826 28,181,955 38,975,364

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,270,433 33,539,045 35,203,755ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,605,259 61,721,000 74,179,119

s reported under HTS 8528.10 part. s reported under HTS 8471.20 part. s under this item included products now reported under HTS 8473.50 part. s reported under HTS 8471.92 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued imports. 

cts now reported under this item, were reported under HTS 8471.99.32 and .34. Trade data were adjusted to reflect this

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
e with China, by SITC nos. (revision 3), 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

U.S. exports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273,038 1,305,359 769,631

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,388 8,582 3,173

aterials, inedible, except fuels 1,151,459 1,674,633 1,871,381 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 61,123 25,287 67,587 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 134,790 395,186 113,629 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 1,505,270 2,008,017 1,722,182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 402,371 662,385 783,853 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 5,050,630 4,747,820 5,464,882 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 480,407 633,556 847,386 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 112,408 151,721 157,540 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,177,884 11,612,547 11,801,243

U.S. imports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529,927 594,807 655,224

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,409 11,753 15,168

aterials, inedible, except fuels 248,685 332,770 376,751 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 373,499 430,685 462,465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 3,111 2,537 7,549 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 740,668 893,699 1,077,181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 3,318,280 4,234,204 4,548,265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 8,905,939 11,879,776 13,813,261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 24,131,343 26,585,800 29,819,465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 307,636 403,953 434,046 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,572,496 45,369,985 51,209,376

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
na, by Schedule B number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

s and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 1,657,606 870,672 1,310,778 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944,121 1,204,154 891,052

not carded or combed 644,986 828,811 727,497 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd meslin, excluding durum wheat 166,228 506,093 426,381 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, whether or not broken 8,645 50,657 414,476 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 121,040 104,712 166,991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

si for transmission, radar, radio, television, etc., excluding antennas 110,060 15,663 157,737 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ssion apparatus incorporating reception apparatus 2195,722 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144,972 144,873

s and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 387,477 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,598 136,439

aft including satellites spacecraft launch vehicles 464,864 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133,790 121,674

elephonic or telegraphic apparatus 116,934 162,208 120,077 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 oilcake and other solid residue, whether or not ground 0 0 116,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 lifting, handling, loading or unloading machines nesi 39,652 69,160 110,360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

achines except coin-operated; board games; mah-jong; dominoes; dice 5,127 58,357 109,586 . . . . . . . . . . . 

ded magnetic discs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,589 23,364 102,477

r, uncoated unbleached in rolls or sheets 84,146 51,754 102,362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 oil and fractions, crude, whether or not degummed 104,192 298,680 99,135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

w hides and skins of bovine animals, nesi, fresh or wet-salted 40,082 87,590 91,569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 boring or sinking machinery, nesi 76,459 68,359 85,537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

lene having a specific gravity under 0.94 16,175 94,278 85,344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

l woodpulp, soda, or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semi-bleached

eached coniferous wood 23,584 55,831 82,917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gital automated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (5) (5 . . . . . . . . . ) 76,641

filament tow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,667 114,768 76,357

d “low value” shipments 52,332 73,743 73,117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

repaired or altered articles previous imported 40,380 63,493 69,422 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,655,070 5,395,705 5,899,500

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,522,815 6,216,842 5,901,743ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,177,884 11,612,547 11,801,243

e Only” reporting number aggregating certain fertilizer products to prevent disclosure.

cts now reported under Schedule B 8517.11 were covered by 8525.20.50. Trade data were adjusted to insure consistency ofcts now reported under Schedule B 8479.50 were covered by 8479.89.90.40 in 1994 and 8479.89.95.40 in 1995. Trade data were

ency of reporting. 

s reported under Schedule B 8802.50. s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued exports.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
China, by HTS number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

r not covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber or plastics or composition

r and uppers of leather 1,571,605 1,856,584 2,122,236 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

r with outer soles and upper of rubber or plastics, nesi 1,149,805 1,292,246 1,472,666 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ys and models, nesi 1,019,753 1,227,590 1,436,373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 1561,900 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974,800 1,351,827

resenting only human beings and parts and accessories thereof, whether or

essed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,005 794,796 998,797

oys representing animals or non-human creatures and parts and accessories 616,054 735,428 994,784 . . . . . . 

r, covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition

r and uppers of leather 901,211 915,444 953,078 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

or Christmas festivities and parts and accessories thereof 538,512 715,175 755,140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

diobroadcast apparatus combined with sound recording or reproducing

atus (2) (2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 693,448

output units for automated data processing machines (3) (3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 674,960

of apparel of leather or composition leather 656,368 603,023 600,275 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted

heted, of textile materials, nesi 758,095 547,383 599,558 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

c disk drive storage units diameter exceeding 21 cm (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 580,485

cases, bags and similar containers, with outer surface of plastic sheeting or of

materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497,494 548,358 565,907

of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914, nesi 429,205 512,838 550,345 . . . . . . . . . . 

resenting animal and nonhuman creatures and parts and accessories 338,352 378,643 529,105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

r covering the ankle, with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics,

ing waterproof footwear 547,584 544,490 516,885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

phone sets with cordless handsets 5565,215 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522,419 490,597

 up in sets or outfits and parts and accessories, nesi 293,055 347,603 442,619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

achines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423,319 396,478 441,154

nverters 6258,986 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,633 434,200

flowers, foliage and fruit and parts thereof, and articles made up of artificial

s, foliage or fruit, of materials other than plastics 434,517 471,990 410,477 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gs with outer surface of plastic sheet or text materials 353,295 374,977 386,913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 models with a motor, and parts and accessories, nesi 284,293 323,838 380,784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

otwear, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, with outer soles of rubber, plastics,

her and uppers of textile materials 209,984 271,484 370,570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,008,609 14,736,219 18,753,181

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,563,888 30,633,767 32,456,195ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,572,496 45,369,985 51,209,376

s under this item included products now reported under HTS 8473.50 part. s reported under HTS 8527.11 part. s reported under HTS 8471.92 part. s reported under HTS 8471.93 part. 

cts now reported under this item, were reported under HTS 8425.20.50. cts now reported under this item, were reported under HTS 8471.99.32 and .34. Trade data were adjusted to reflect this

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
e with Taiwan, by SITC nos. (revision 3), 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

U.S. exports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,363,145 1,559,987 1,888,389

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,291 127,356 122,744

aterials, inedible, except fuels 1,306,015 1,665,421 1,602,357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 374,434 293,480 370,772 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 19,942 27,432 13,702 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 2,430,521 2,873,580 2,307,854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 937,915 1,278,447 1,067,385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 7,452,355 8,228,400 7,631,698 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 1,343,865 1,314,096 1,444,697 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 865,795 667,457 470,701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,240,279 18,035,656 16,920,298

U.S. imports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286,335 282,413 278,041

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,942 6,163 6,305

aterials, inedible, except fuels 98,779 114,708 105,751 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 733 2,833 1,128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 2,972 3,470 3,399 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 398,247 396,896 402,112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 3,719,700 3,781,827 3,756,175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 13,941,947 16,667,647 18,032,603 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 7,779,121 7,237,730 6,736,369 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 351,731 380,885 475,152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,585,506 28,874,572 29,797,035

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
wan, by Schedule B number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

aize), other than seed corn 566,132 770,817 962,061 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, whether or not broken 441,804 600,467 776,798 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

de semiconductors (1) (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 769,423

s and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 902,429 1,201,660 662,099 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating piston

, cylinder capacity over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 946,394 781,545 482,805 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 2170,908 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358,161 470,327

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 472,469 459,192 394,120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

onolithic integrated circuits (3) (3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 363,400

obtained by bipolar technology (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 263,679

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 5160,387 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230,286 248,316

 tools nesi for dry etching patterns on semiconductor materials 673,134 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,622 228,526

grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, etc., and parts 194,173 145,692 214,913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd meslin, excluding durum wheat 155,390 155,240 214,490 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 198,347 219,934 213,897 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323,741 439,550 185,261

m oil and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, except crude 207,402 153,633 185,052 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gital automated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (8) (8 . . . . . . . . . ) 176,131

w hides and skins of bovine animals, nesi, fresh or wet-salted 166,040 200,376 173,731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

oroethane (ethylene dichloride) 103,170 108,024 157,991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

aste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries, etc. (9) (9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 129,973

copper cathodes and sections of cathodes 132,510 203,059 127,812 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

anters for doping semiconductor materials (10) (10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 127,481

machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 72,314 93,234 118,737 . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 glycol (ethanediol) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,148 126,284 113,807

of military equipment, not identified 171,120 127,171 112,710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,527,011 6,539,947 7,873,540

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,713,267 11,495,709 9,046,758ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,240,279 18,035,656 16,920,298

s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. 

cts now reported under Schedule B 8479.50 were covered by 8479.89.90.40 in 1994 and 8479.89.95.40 in 1995. Trade data were

ency of reporting. 

s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s under this item included products now reported under Schedule B 8473.50 part. s reported under Schedule B 8456.90.50.40. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued exports.

s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part. s reported under Schedule B 8548.00 part. 

rts reported under Schedule B 8543.10 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Taiwan, by HTS number, 1994-1996

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 12,436,566 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,536,231 3,832,695

ed data processing input or output units (2) (2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 2,150,889

de semiconductors (3) (3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 2,031,877

 digital automated data processing machines lot exceeding 10 kg, with at least a CPU,

rd and display (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 984,759

onolithic integrated circuits (5) (5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 565,027

ircuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301,267 442,414 506,159

um, playground or other exercise articles and equipment; parts and

sories thereof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249,264 240,435 399,401

nverters 6375,537 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398,082 373,709

ssion apparatus for radio or television 205,180 231,679 351,014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

its of automated data processing machines (7) (7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 347,292

and other cycles (including delivery tricycle) not motorized 322,367 373,356 320,944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or

ted, of man-made fibers 339,537 327,084 298,539 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d screws and bolts, of iron or steel, nesi, whether or not with their nuts or washers 246,342 292,388 287,754 . . 

cles exported and returned, not advanced or improved in condition; animals

ed or returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,187 163,191 243,168

or, wall, window, ceiling or roof fans, with a self-contained electric motor of

tput not exceeding 125 W 321,189 250,595 242,661 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

c disk drive storage units diameter exceeding 21 cm (8) (8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 229,545

paratus for carrier-current line systems or for digital line systems 9153,900 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132,606 228,471

furniture, other than of a kind used in the bedroom 318,134 273,797 227,416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cks, valves and similar appliances, nesi 197,670 215,006 226,360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tomated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (10) (10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 216,019

d “low value” shipments 183,933 200,727 211,169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

niture, other than of a kind used in offices 261,602 234,410 208,055 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ing screws of iron or steel 158,159 194,343 201,473 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cases, bags and similar containers, with outer surface of plastic sheeting or of

materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166,539 194,850 185,200

ron or steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156,976 178,743 167,812

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,553,348 7,879,939 15,037,407

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,032,158 21,994,633 14,759,629ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,585,506 28,874,572 29,797,035

s under this item included products now reported under HTS 8473.50 part. s reported under HTS 8471.92 part. s reported under HTS 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s reported under HTS 8471.20 part. s reported under HTS 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. 

cts now reported under this item, were reported under HTS 8471.99.32 and .34. Trade data were adjusted to reflect this coverage. 

s reported under HTS 8471.99 part. s reported under HTS 8471.93 part. 

cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 8517.40. 

rts reported under HTS 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued imports.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
e with Korea, by SITC nos. (revision 3), 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

U.S. exports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,137,203 2,249,909 2,490,823

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,373 188,052 197,183

aterials, inedible, except fuels 2,466,423 3,201,465 2,645,975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 561,255 649,323 736,105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 57,824 107,502 59,588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 1,867,528 2,602,781 2,576,711 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material. 1,021,271 1,667,959 1,454,480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 8,407,669 11,458,695 12,316,061 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 1,532,907 1,906,648 2,245,938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 307,677 450,615 710,541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,499,129 24,482,948 25,433,405

U.S. imports

d live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,102 148,026 143,845

es and tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,426 10,576 16,527

aterials, inedible, except fuels 127,593 155,977 143,846 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uels, lubricants and related materials 149,058 134,829 93,944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1,472 1,181 1,397 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ls and related products, nesi 364,773 438,134 494,916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tured goods classified chiefly by material 2,129,282 2,219,552 2,200,218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and transport equipment 11,746,617 16,485,315 15,437,528 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 4,689,339 4,178,715 3,555,100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dities and transactions not classified elsewhere in SITC 184,472 253,399 444,275 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,547,134 24,025,703 22,531,596

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
uth Korea, by Schedule B number, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 922,481 1,255,114 1,393,126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

aize), other than seed corn 251,815 1,110,315 1,259,806 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

de semiconductors (1) (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 923,321

s and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 2259,914 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852,306 873,948

airplanes or helicopters, nesi 654,175 737,852 643,830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ssion apparatus incorporating reception apparatus 3388,104 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435,540 529,926

w hides and skins of bovine animals, nesi, fresh or wet-salted 539,079 614,210 457,249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, whether or not broken 228,443 335,769 438,684 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

obtained by bipolar technology (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 419,652

machinery and mechanical appliances having individual functions, nesi 300,121 241,862 385,349 . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 5215,883 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275,404 365,600

etary gold (including gold plated with platinum), unwrought, excluding powder 27,962 106,503 346,092 . . . . . . 

nd meslin, excluding durum wheat 227,732 260,308 328,082 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gital automated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (6) (6 . . . . . . . . . ) 305,280

waste and scrap nesi 231,656 331,702 281,587 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

m oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude 319,523 345,269 264,407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 steam and other vapor turbines 107,450 178,229 263,025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

not carded or combed 316,561 361,490 256,601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d “low value” shipments 161,271 228,475 244,075 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d accessories of motor vehicles, nesi 166,936 247,798 225,418 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 from petroleum and bituminous minerals 1,513 0 173,180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

us coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 143,247 164,385 161,192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

bovine animals, boneless, frozen 187,047 233,199 155,447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

onolithic integrated circuits (8) (8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 154,148

si, for radar, radio, televison, etc. transmission, except antennas 83,917 147,109 147,848 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,734,829 8,462,839 10,996,874

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,764,300 16,020,109 14,436,531ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,499,129 24,482,948 25,433,405

s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. 

cts now reported under Schedule B 8479.50 were covered by 8479.89.90.40 in 1994 and 8479.89.95.40 in 1995. Trade data were

ency of reporting. 

cts now reported under Schedule B 8517.11 were covered by 8525.20.50. Trade data were adjusted to insure consistency of

s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s under this item included products now reported under Schedule B 8473.50 part. s reported under Schedule B 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part. 

e Only” reporting number estimating low-valued exports.

s reported under Schedule B 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Korea, by HTS number, 1995-96

(1,000 dollars)

ion 1994 1995 1996

de semiconductors (1) (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 5,479,323

d accessories for automated data processing machines and units 21,183,375 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,383,535 1,940,961

output units for automated data processing machines (3) (3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 1,487,729

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine, over 1,500 but not over 3,000 cc 772,907 1,100,581 1,259,739 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

er motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal-combustion reciprocating

engine over 1,000 but not over 1,500 cc 696,204 549,750 586,827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

onolithic integrated circuits (4) (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 401,436

ve ovens of a kind used for domestic purposes 390,883 399,302 385,822 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cles exported and returned, not advanced or improved in condition 125,289 179,807 360,447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

c tape-type video recording or reproducing apparatus 604,555 561,632 272,659 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c disk drive storage units diameter exceeding 21 cm (5) (5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 231,475

s, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or

ted, of man-made fibers 275,038 209,507 182,541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d boys’ jackets and windbreakers of man-made fibers, not knitted or crocheted 218,313 190,379 180,870 . . . . 

ssion apparatus incorporating reception apparatus 6226,748 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382,511 176,416

tomated data processing machines, entered in the form of systems (7) (7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 163,700

d unrecorded magnetic tapes or sound recording, of a width exceeding 6.5 mm 132,989 157,340 146,984 . . . . . 

r bags, cases, etc. nesi, plastic/textile materials 124,330 144,139 122,080 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

oven fabrics at least 85 percent by weight of non-textured polyester filaments (8) (8 . . . . . . . ) 122,002

ircuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,137 89,882 119,600

d products of iron or nonalloy steel in coils nesi, of a thickness of 3 mm

e but less than 4.75 mm (9) (9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 115,737

pelled mechanical shovels and excavators, with a 360-degree revolving 

tructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,536 73,654 115,381

d products of iron or nonalloy steel in coils nesi, of a thickness less than 3 mm (10) (10 . . . . . ) 112,468

 boys’ shirts, not knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers 143,742 141,738 110,212 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ally controlled horizontal lathes for removing metal 31,899 75,854 104,047 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tegrated circuits (11) (11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 101,452

r not covering the ankles, with outer soles of rubber or plastics or composition

r and uppers of leather 190,928 129,041 99,786 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,216,873 6,768,651 14,379,697

ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,330,261 17,257,057 8,151,900ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,547,134 24,025,703 22,531,596

s reported under HTS 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s under this item included products now reported under HTS 8473.50 part. s reported under HTS 8471.92 part. s reported under HTS 8542.11 part, .19 part, .20 part, and .80 part. s reported under HTS 8471.93 part. 

cts now reported under HTS 8517.11 were covered by 8525.20.50. Trade data were adjusted to insure consistency of reporting. 

s reported under HTS 8471.91 part, .92 part, .93 part, and .99 part. s reported under HTS 5407.60 part. s reported under HTS 7208.13.50 part and 7208.23.50 part. 

rts reported under HTS 7208.14.50 part and 7208.24.50 part. 

rts reported under HTS 8542.20 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
tive in 1996, filed under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, by final outcomes and by USITC investigation

(Affirmative (A); Partial Affirmative (P); Negative (N); Suspension Agreement (S); Terminated (T))

Date Preliminary Final

original determination determination Date of

Country petition final

of origin filed Commission ITA1 ITA1 Commission action2

Affirmative

cohol China Mar. 9, 1995 A A A A May 14, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cohol Japan Mar. 9, 1995 A A A A May 14, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cohol Taiwan Mar. 9, 1995 A A A A May 14, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ta Italy May 12, 1995 P A A A July 24, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ta Turkey May 12, 1995 P A A A July 24, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

paper printing 

Germany Jun. 30, 1995 A A A A Sept. 4, 1996 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

paper printing 

Japan June 30, 1995 A A A A Sept. 4, 1996 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

plate Japan Sept. 29, 1995 A A A A July 2, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Negative

cohol Korea Mar. 9, 1995 N (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China Apr. 5, 1995 A A A N June 12, 1996 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ded non-alloy 

e Romania Apr. 26, 1995 A A A N June 27, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ded non-alloy 

e South Africa Apr. 26, 1995 A A A N June 27, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Suspended

toes Mexico Apr. 1, 1996 A S (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Terminated

ded PVC and

e framing stock United Kingdom Sept. 8, 1995 A A A T Nov. 8, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . 

In Progress

de Japan Jan. 16, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nstitutional dinnerware China Feb. 6, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . nstitutional dinnerware Indonesia Feb. 6, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . nstitutional dinnerware Taiwan Feb. 6, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ke drums and rotors China Mar. 7, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ete reinforcing bars Turkey Mar. 8, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

nd high-beryllium 

Kazakhstan Mar. 14, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

able.
d

tive in 1996, filed under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, by final outcomes and by USITC investigation

(Affirmative (A); Partial Affirmative (P); Negative (N); Suspension Agreement (S); Terminated (T))

Date Preliminary Final

original determination determination Date of

Country petition final

of origin filed Commission ITA1 ITA1 Commission action2

In Progress

 process gas turbo-

or systems Japan May 8, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China July 11, 1996 A A (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ercomputers Japan July 29, 1996 A (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

pun rayon singles yarn Austria Aug. 20, 1996 A (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . 

l meat China Sept. 20, 1996 A (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

th carbon steel plate China Nov. 5, 1996 A (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

th carbon steel plate Russia Nov. 5, 1996 A (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . th carbon steel plate South Africa Nov. 5, 1996 A (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . th carbon steel plate Ukraine Nov. 5, 1996 A (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ofing nails China Nov. 26, 1996 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ofing nails Korea Nov. 26, 1996 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ofing nails Taiwan Nov. 26, 1996 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA). 

the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. 

staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission.
195

Table A-23

Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Argentina:

Oil country tubular goods Aug. 11, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Seamless pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 3, 1995

Silicon metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 26, 1991

Rectangular tubing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 22, 1989

Barbed wire and barbless wire strand Nov. 13, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Carbon steel wire rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 23, 1984

Armenia: Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Australia:

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canned Bartlett pears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 23, 1973

Austria: Railway track equipment Feb. 17, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Azerbaijan: Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Bangladesh: Cotton shop towels Mar. 20, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Belarus-Baltic: Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Belgium:

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial phosphoric acid Aug. 20, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 13, 1979

Brazil:

Seamless pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 3, 1995

Stainless steel bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 21, 1995

Silicomanganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 22, 1994

Ferrosilicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 14, 1994

Stainless steel wire rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 28, 1994

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products Mar. 22, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silicon metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 31, 1991

Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 10, 1990

Frozen concentrated orange juice May 5, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 12, 1987

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Dec. 17, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malleable cast iron pipe fittings May 21, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Iron construction castings May 9, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Canada:

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pure alloy magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 31, 1992

New steel rails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 15, 1989

Color picture tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 7, 1988

Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 12, 1987

Oil country tubular goods June 16, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iron construction castings Mar. 5, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Red raspberries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 24, 1985

Sugar and syrups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 9, 1980

Racing plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 27, 1974

Elemental sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 17, 1973

Steel jacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 13, 1966

Chile: Fresh cut flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 20, 1987

China:

Polyvinyl alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 14, 1996

Manganese metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 6, 1996

See footnote at end of table.
196

Table A-23—Continued

Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

China—Continued:

Furfuryl alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 21, 1995

Pure magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 12, 1995

Glycine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 29, 1995

Coumarin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 9, 1995

Cased pencils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 28, 1994

Silicomanganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 22, 1994

Paper clips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 25, 1994

Garlic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 16, 1994

Sebacic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1994

Helical spring lock washers Oct. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compact ductile iron waterworks fittings Sept. 7, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ferrosilicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 11, 1993

Sulfanilic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 19, 1992

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings July 6, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tungsten ore concentrates Nov. 21, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chrome-plated lug nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 20, 1991

Sparklers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 18, 1991

Silicon metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 10, 1991

Sodium thiosulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 19, 1991

Heavy forged handtools Feb. 19, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 10, 1990

Tapered roller bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 15, 1987

Porcelain-on-steel cookware Dec. 2, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Candles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 28, 1986

Iron construction castings May 9, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Paint brushes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 14, 1986

Barium chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 17, 1984

Chloropicrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 22, 1984

Potassium permanganate Jan. 31, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cotton shop towels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 4, 1983

Printcloth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 16, 1983

Colombia: Fresh cut flowers Mar. 18, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Ecuador: Fresh cut flowers Mar. 18, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Estonia: Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Finland:

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

France:

Calcium aluminate flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 13, 1994

Stainless steel wire rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 28, 1994

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products Mar. 22, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antifriction bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 6, 1987

Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 10, 1983

Sorbitol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 9, 1982

Anhydrous sodium metasilicate Jan. 7, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 13, 1979

Large power transformers June 14, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Georgia:

Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Germany:

Large newspaper printing presses Sept. 4, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seamless pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 3, 1995

Cold-rolled carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products Mar. 22, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

See footnote at end of table.
197

Table A-23—Continued

Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Germany—Continued:

Rayon yarn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 30, 1992

Sodium thiosulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 19, 1991

Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 10, 1990

Industrial belts (except synchronous and V-belts) June 14, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antrifriction bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 6, 1987

Barium carbonate, precipitated June 25, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 13, 1979

Animal glue and inedible gelatin Dec. 22, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Greece: Electrolytic manganese dioxide Apr. 17, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hong Kong: Sweaters of manmade fiber Sept. 24, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hungary: Tapered roller bearings June 19, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

India:

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 pipes and tubes May 12, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Iran: Pistachio nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 17, 1986

Israel:

Industrial phosphoric acid Aug. 19, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil country tubular goods Mar. 6, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Italy:

Certain pasta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 24, 1996

Oil country tubular goods Aug. 11, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Seamless pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 3, 1995

Grain-oriented electric steel Aug. 12, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronous industrial belts and V-belts June 14, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antifriction bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Aug. 30, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 6, 1987

Brass fire protection equipment Mar. 1, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pressure sensitive tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 21, 1977

Large power transformers June 14, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Japan:

Large newspaper printing presses Sept. 4, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Clad steel plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 2, 1996

Polyvinyl alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 14, 1996

Oil country tubular goods. Aug. 11, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stainless steel bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 21, 1995

Grain-oriented electric steel June 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defrost timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 2, 1994

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electric cutting tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 12, 1993

Lenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 15, 1992

EL flat panel displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 4, 1991

Gray portland cement and cement clinker May 10, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benzyl paraben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 13, 1991

Laser light-scattering instruments Nov. 19, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 10, 1990

Mechanical transfer presses Feb. 16, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drafting machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 29, 1989

Telephone systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 11, 1989

Industrial belts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 14, 1989

See footnote at end of table.
198

Table A-23—Continued

Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Japan—Continued:

Antifriction bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Electrolytic manganese dioxide April 17,1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Microdisks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 30, 1989

Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Aug. 28, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 12, 1988

Nitrile rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 16, 1988

Forklift trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 7, 1988

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Mar. 25 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Color picture tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 7, 1988

Tapered roller bearings over 4 inches Oct. 6, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malleable cast-iron pipe fittings July 6, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Butt-weld pipe fittings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 10, 1987

Cellular mobile telephones Dec. 19, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Calcium hypochlorite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 18, 1985

Titanium sponge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 30, 1984

Stainless steel pipes and tubes, seamless Apr. 1, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High powered amplifiers July 20, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Steel wire strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 8, 1978

Impression fabric of man-made fibers May 25, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 2, 1977

Acrylic sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 30, 1976

Tapered roller bearings 4 inches and under Aug. 18, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polychloroprene rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 6, 1973

Steel wire rope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 15, 1973

Synthetic methionine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 10, 1973

Roller chain other than bicycles Apr. 12, 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle speedometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 22, 1972

Large power transformers June 14, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishnetting of man-made fiber June 9, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Television receiving sets Mar. 10, 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Kazakstan:

Ferrosilicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 7, 1993

Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Titanium sponge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 28, 1968

Kenya: Fresh cut flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 23, 1987

Korea:

Oil country tubular goods Aug. 11, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cold-rolled carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 10, 1993

Carbon steel wire rope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 26, 1993

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Welded stainless steel pipes Dec. 30, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circular welded non-alloy pipe Nov. 2, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PET film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 5, 1991

Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 10, 1990

Telephone systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 7, 1990

Color picture tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 7, 1988

Stainless steel cookware Jan. 20, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 12, 1987

Malleable cast iron pipe fittings May 23, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Photo albums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 16, 1985

Television receiving sets Apr. 30, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Kyrgyzstan: Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Latvia-Baltic: Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Lithuania: Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Malaysia: Extruded rubber thread Oct. 7, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

See footnote at end of table.
199

Table A-23—Continued

Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Mexico:

Oil country tubular goods Aug. 11, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carbon steel wire rope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 25, 1993

Circular welded non-alloy pipe Nov. 2, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gray portland cement and cement clinker Aug. 30, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fresh cut flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 23, 1987

Porcelain-on-steel cookware Dec. 2, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Moldova: Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Netherlands:

Aramid fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 27, 1994

Cold-rolled carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 12, 1988

New Zealand:

Fresh kiwifruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 2, 1992

Brazing copper wire and rod Dec. 4, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Norway: Atlantic salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 12, 1991

Poland: Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Romania:

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Ball bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Tapered roller bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 19, 1987

Russia:

Ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium July 10, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pure magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 12, 1995

Ferrosilicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 24, 1993

Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Titanium sponge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 28, 1968

Singapore:

Industrial belts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 14, 1989

Antifriction bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Color picture tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 7, 1988

Rectangular pipes and tubes Nov. 13, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

South Africa:

Furfuryl alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 21, 1995

Brazing copper wire and rod Jan. 29, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Spain:

Stainless steel bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 2, 1995

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Potassium permanganate Jan. 19, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sweden:

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Antifriction bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Seamless stainless steel hollow products Dec. 3, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 6, 1987

Stainless steel plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 8, 1973

Taiwan:

Polyvinyl alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 14, 1996

Forged stainless steel flanges Feb. 9, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helical spring lockwashers June 28, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings June 16, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

See footnote at end of table.
200

Table A-23—Continued

Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Taiwan—Continued:

Welded stainless steel pipes Dec. 30, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Circular welded non-alloy pipe Nov. 2, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chrome plated lug nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 20, 1991

Telephone systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 11, 1989

Rectangular tubing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 27, 1989

Stainless steel cookware Jan. 20, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Butt-weld pipe fittings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dec. 17, 1986

Porcelain-on-steel cookware Dec. 2, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Oil country tubular goods June 18, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Malleable cast iron pipe fittings May 23, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Circular pipes and tubes May 7, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Television receiving sets Apr. 30, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Carbon steel plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 13, 1979

Tajikistan: Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Thailand:

Furfuryl alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 25, 1995

Canned pineapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 18, 1995

Butt-weld pipe fittings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 6, 1992

Malleable cast iron pipe fittings Aug. 20, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Circular welded pipes and tubes Mar. 11, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Turkey:

Certain pasta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 24, 1996

Aspirin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 25, 1987

Pipes and tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1986

Turkmenistan: Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Ukraine:

Pure magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 12, 1995

Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 30, 1993

Ferrosilicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 7, 1993

Urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Titanium sponge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 28, 1968

United Kingdom:

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 19, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Lead and bismuth steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 22, 1993

Sodium thiosulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 19, 1991

Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 10, 1990

Ball bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 15, 1989

Cylindrical roller bearings May 15, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Forged steel crankshafts Sept. 23, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Water circulating pumps July 7, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Uzbekistan: Solid urea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 14, 1987

Venezuela:

Ferrosilicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 24, 1993

Circular welded non-alloy pipe Nov. 2, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Yugoslavia:

Industrial nitrocellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 16, 1990

Suspension agreements in effect:

Canada: Potassium chloride Jan. 19, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

See footnote at end of table.
201

Table A-23—Continued

Antidumping orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Suspension agreements in effect—Continued:

Japan:

Color negative photo paper Aug. 12, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erasable programmable read-only memory chips Aug. 6, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small electric motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 6, 1980

Kazakhstan: Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 30, 1992

Kyrgyzstan: Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 30, 1992

Mexico: Fresh tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 1, 1996

China: Honey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 16, 1995

Russia: Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 30, 1992

Urkraine: Silicomanganese Dec. 22, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Uzbekistan: Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 30, 1992

Venezuela: Cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 27, 1992

1 The U.S. Department of Commerce conducts a periodic review of outstanding antidumping duty orders and

suspension agreements, upon request, to determine if the amount of the net margin of underselling has changed. If a

change has occurred, the imposed antidumping duties are adjusted accordingly. The results of the periodic review

must be published together with a formal notice of any antidumping duty to be assessed, estimated duty to be

deposited, or investigation to be resumed.

Source: Compiled by staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission from data maintained by the U.S. Department

of Commerce (International Trade Administration).
active in 1996, filed under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, by final outcomes and by USITC investigation

(Affirmative (A); Partial Affirmative (P); Negative (N))

Date Preliminary Final

original determination determination Date of

Country petition final

of origin filed Commission ITA1 ITA1 Commission action2

Affirmative

ta Italy May 12, 1995 P A A A July 24, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ta Turkey May 12, 1995 P A A A July 24, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Negative

inated hardwood 

Canada Mar. 7, 1996 A N (3) (3) (3) 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA).

 the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. 

onal Trade Commission (USITC) conducts preliminary and final investigations under section 701 if the imports originate in a

e GATT Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties (formally known as the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of

of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) or has undertaken comparable obligations. Similarly, USITC conducts preliminary

der section 303 if the imports enter the United States free of duty and the international obligations of the United States so require.

mports from those countries that have neither signed the Subsidies Code nor undertaken substantially equivalent obligations,

be imposed after an affirmative finding by the Department of Commerce under section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930 without an

USITC. Exceptions are granted in instances in which the exporting country becomes a signatory to the code or to an equivalent

stigation.

staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission.
203

Table A-25

Countervailing-duty orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Argentina:

Leather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 2, 1990

Oil country tubular goods Nov. 27, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 4, 1983

Belgium: Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brazil:

Cut-to-length carbon steel plate Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products Mar. 22, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 8, 1987

Heavy construction castings May 15, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Agricultural tillage tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 22, 1985

Pig iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 4, 1980

Cotton yarn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 15, 1977

Certain castor oil products Mar. 16, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Canada:

Pure and alloy magnesium Aug. 31, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New steel rails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept 22, 1989

Live swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 15, 1985

Chile: Fresh cut flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 19, 1987

European Union:2 Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 31, 1978

France:

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products Mar. 22, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brass sheet and strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 6, 1987

Germany:

Cold-rolled carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cut-to-length carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products Mar. 22, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

India:

Sulfanilic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 2, 1993

Certain iron-metal castings Oct. 18, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Iran:

Roasted pistachios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 7, 1986

 Raw pistachios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 11, 1986

Israel:

Industrial phosphoric acid Aug. 19, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Oil country tubular goods Mar. 6, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Italy:

Certain pasta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 24, 1996

Oil country tubular goods Aug. 10, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Seamless pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 8, 1995

Grain-oriented electric steel June 7, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Korea:

Cold-rolled carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Stainless steel cookware Jan. 20, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Malaysia:

Extruded rubber thread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug. 25, 1992

See footnote at end of table.
204

Table A-25—Continued

Countervailing-duty orders and findings in effect as of Dec. 31, 1996

Effective date of

Country and commodity original action1

Mexico:

Cut-to-length carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Porcelain-on-steel cookware Dec. 12, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Netherlands: Fresh cut flowers Mar. 12, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Norway: Atlantic salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 12, 1991

Pakistan: Cotton shop towels Mar. 9, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Peru: Fresh cut flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 23, 1987

Spain:

Cut-to-length carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stainless steel wire rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 3, 1983

Sweden:

Cut-to-length carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certain carbon steel products Oct. 11, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viscose rayon staple fiber May 15, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Taiwan: Stainless steel cookware Jan. 20, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Thailand:

Steel wire rope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept 11, 1991

Turkey:

Certain pasta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 24, 1996

Pipes and tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 7, 1986

United Kingdom:

Cut-to-length carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products Mar. 22, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Venezuela: Ferrosilicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 10, 1993

Suspension agreements in effect:

Argentina: Carbon wire rod Sept 27, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brazil:

Tool steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 21, 1983

Colombia:

Cut flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan. 13, 1987

Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct. 22, 1993

Peru: Cotton shop towels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept 12, 1984

Singapore: Compressors Nov. 7, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Venezuela: Gray portland cement and cement clinker Mar. 17, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1 The U.S. Department of Commerce conducts a periodic review of outstanding countervailing-duty orders and

suspension agreements, upon request, to determine if the amount of the net subsidy has changed. If a change has

occurred, the imposed countervailing duties are adjusted accordingly. 2 Includes Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the

United Kingdom.

Source: Compiled by staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission from data maintained by the U.S. Department

of Commerce (International Trade Administration).
205

Table A-26

Section 337 investigations completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 1996 and

those pending on Dec. 31, 1996

Status of

Investigation Article Country1 Commission determination

Completed:

337-TA-315 Certain Plastic Encapsulated No foreign Formal enforcement

Integrated Circuits respondents proceeding terminated;

referral to Dept. of Justice

of allegations of false

statements to Commission.

337-TA-370 Certain Salinomycin Biomass and Germany Terminated based on a

Preparations Containing Same finding of no violation.

337-TA-371 Certain Memory Devices With Japan, Korea Terminated based on a

Increased Capacitance and finding of no violation.

Products Containing Same

337-TA-372 Certain Neodymium-Iron-Boron People’s Republic of Issued a general exclusion

Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and China, Hong Kong, order and a cease and desist

Articles Containing Same Taiwan order.

337-TA-374 Certain Electrical Connectors and Taiwan Issued a limited exclusion

Products Containing Same order and a cease and desist

order.

337-TA-376 Certain Variable Speed Wind Germany Issued a limited exclusion

Turbines and Components order.

Thereof

337-TA-377 Certain Microprocessors Having Hong Kong Terminated based on a

Alignment Checking and Products consent order and 

Containing Same withdrawal of the 

complaint as to the 

remaining respondent.

337-TA-378 Certain Asian-Style Kamaboko Japan Issued a limited exclusion 

Fish Cakes order and cease and desist 

orders.

337-TA-379 Certain Starter Kill Vehicle Taiwan Terminated based on

Systems withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-384 Certain Monolithic Microwave Japan Terminated based on

Integrated Circuit Downconverters a settlement agreement.

and Products Containing the Same,

Including Low Noise Block

Downconverters

337-TA-386 Certain Global Positioning Canada Terminated based on a

System Coarse Acquisition settlement agreement.

Code Receivers and Products 

Containing Same

337-TA-387 Certain Self-Powered Fiber Israel Terminated based on

Optic Modems a settlement agreement.

Pending:

337-TA-334 Certain Condensers, Parts Japan Remand from the Federal

Thereof and Products Containing Circuit; pending before the 

Same Including Air Conditioners Commission.

for Automobiles

337-TA-370 Certain Salinomycin Biomass Germany Ancillary sanctions

and Preparations Containing proceeding pending before 

Same the ALJ.
206

Table A-26—Continued

Section 337 investigations completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 1996 and

those pending on Dec. 31, 1996

Status of

Investigation Article Country1 Commission determination

Pending: 

337-TA-372 Certain Neodymium-Iron-Boron People’s Republic Formal enforcement

Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and of China proceeding pending before

Articles Containing Same the Commission.

337-TA-380 Certain Agricultural Tractors Japan Pending before the

Under 50 Power Take-Off Commission.

Horsepower

337-TA-381 Certain Electronic Products, Korea Pending before the ALJ.

Including Semiconductor 

Products, Manufactured

by Certain Processes

337-TA-382 Certain Flash Memory Circuits Korea Pending before the ALJ.

and Products Containing Same

337-TA-383 Certain Hardware Logic France Pending before the ALJ;

Emulation Systems and Products temporary limited exclusion

Containing Same order and temporary cease 

and desist order issued.

337-TA-385 Certain Random Access Japan, Singapore Pending before the ALJ.

Memories, Processes for the 

Manufacture of Same, and 

Products Containing Same 

337-TA-388 Certain Dynamic Random Access Taiwan Pending before the ALJ.

Memory Controllers and Certain

Multi-Layer Integrated Circuits, as

Well as Chipsets and Products

Containing Same

337-TA-389 Certain Diagnostic Kits for the Netherlands Pending before the ALJ.

Detection and Quantification of

Viruses

337-TA-390 Certain Transport Vehicle Tires Korea Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-391 Certain Toothbrushes and People’s Republic Pending before the ALJ.

Packaging Thereof of China, Taiwan

337-TA-392 Certain Digital Satellite System No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ.

(DSS) Receivers and 

Components Thereof

1 This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the investigation.

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission, Office of Unfair Import Investigations.
207

Table A-27

Outstanding sec. 337 exclusion orders as of Dec. 31, 1996

Investigation Date patent

No. Article Country1 expires2

337-TA-55 Certain Novelty Glasses Hong Kong Nonpatent

337-TA-59 Certain Pump-Top Insulated Containers Korea, Taiwan June 6, 19973

337-TA-69 Certain Airtight Cast-Iron Stoves Taiwan, Korea Nonpatent

337-TA-74 Certain Rotatable Photograph and Card Hong Kong Nonpatent

Display Units and Components Thereof

337-TA-87 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent

 and Components Thereof

337-TA-105 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent

and Components Thereof

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 Korea Nonpatent

Rubber Soles

337-TA-137 Certain Heavy-Duty Staple Gun Tackers Taiwan, Hong Kong, Nonpatent 

Korea

337-TA-140 Certain Personal Computers and Components Taiwan, Hong Kong, Apr. 11,19973

 Thereof Singapore, Switzerland July 14, 1998

337-TA-143 Certain Amorphous Metal Alloys and Amorphous Japan, Germany Sept. 9, 1997

 Metal Articles

337-TA-146 Certain Canape Makers No foreign respondents Mar. 22, 1997

337-TA-152 Certain Plastic Food Storage Containers Hong Kong, Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-167 Certain Single Handle Faucets Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-170 Certain Bag Closure Clips Israel Aug. 25, 20003

May 26, 20013

337-TA-174 Certain Woodworking Machines South Africa, Taiwan Mar. 27, 19983

Sept. 17, 20013

337-TA-195 Certain Cloisonne Jewelry Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-197 Certain Compound Action Metal Cutting Snips Taiwan Nonpatent

and ComponentsThereof

337-TA-228 Certain Fans With Brushless DC Motors Japan Sept. 30, 20023

337-TA-229 Certain Nut Jewelry and Parts Thereof Philippines, Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-231 Certain Soft Sculpture Dolls, Popularly Known as No foreign respondents Nonpatent

“Cabbage Patch Kids,” Related Literature,

and Packaging Therefor

337-TA-240 Certain Laser Inscribed Diamonds and the Israel Dec. 23, 20003

Method of Inscription Thereof

337-TA-242 Certain Dynamic Random Access Memories, Japan, Korea Aug. 6, 2002

Components Thereof, and Products Sept. 24, 2002

Containing Same

See footnotes at end of table.
208

Table A-27—Continued

Outstanding sec. 337 exclusion orders as of Dec. 31, 1996

Investigation Date patent

No. Article Country1 expires2

337-TA-254 Certain Small Aluminum Flashlights and Hong Kong, Taiwan June 6, 20043

Components Thereof

337-TA-266 Certain Reclosable Plastic Bags and Tubing Singapore, Taiwan, Nonpatent

Korea, Thailand,

Hong Kong

337-TA-276 Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Korea Feb. 13, 19993

Memories, Components Thereof, Products Dec. 23, 20003

Containing Such Memories and June 17, 20023

Processes for Making Such Memories June 7, 20053

337-TA-279 Certain Plastic Light Duty Screw Anchors Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-285 Certain Chemiluminescent Compositions France Nonpatent

and Components Thereof and Methods of Feb. 2, 1999

Using, and Products Incorporating, the Same

337-TA-287 Certain Strip Lights Taiwan Nonpatent

Apr. 7, 20003

337-TA-293 Certain Crystalline Cefadroxil Monohydrate Italy, Spain, Switzerland Mar. 12, 2002

337-TA-295 Certain Novelty Teleidoscopes Hong Kong Nonpatent

337-TA-308 Certain Key Blanks For Keys of High Security Korea Jan. 13, 2004

Cylinder Locks June 19, 20053

337-TA-314 Certain Battery-Powered Ride-On Toy Vehicles Taiwan Sept. 22, 2001

and Components Thereof Jan. 31, 2003

Dec. 6, 20033

Jan. 27, 2004

Sept. 22, 20063

337-TA-319 Certain Automotive Fuel Caps and Radiator Caps Taiwan Nonpatent

and Related Packaging and Promotional Oct. 4, 19983

Materials July 22, 20063

June 22, 20063

337-TA-320 Certain Rotary Printing Apparatus Using Heated France, Spain Apr. 30, 20043

Ink Composition, Components Thereof, and

Systems Containing Said Apparatus and

Components

337-TA-321 Certain Soft Drinks and Their Containers Colombia Nonpatent

337-TA-324 Certain Acid-Washed Denim Garments and Hong Kong, Taiwan, Oct. 22, 20063

Accessories Brazil, Chile

337-TA-333 Certain Woodworking Accessories Taiwan Mar. 2, 20083

337-TA-337 Certain Integrated Circuit Telecommunication Taiwan May 18, 2001

Chips and Products Containing Same,

Including Dialing Apparatus

337-TA-344 Certain Cutting Tools For Flexible Plastic Taiwan Aug. 1, 20003

Conduit and Components Thereof

337-TA-354 Certain Tape Dispensers Hong Kong, Taiwan Apr. 7, 2001

337-TA-360 Certain Devices For Connecting Computers Taiwan Feb. 13, 2007

Via Telephone Lines

See footnotes at end of table.
209

Table A-27—Continued

Outstanding sec. 337 exclusion orders as of Dec. 31, 1996

Investigation Date patent

No. Article Country1 expires2

337-TA-364 Certain Fluoroelastomer Compositions and Italy Sept. 1, 1998

Precursors Thereof

337-TA-365 Certain Audible Alarm Devices For Divers Taiwan Aug. 21, 20073

Oct. 12, 20083

337-TA-366 Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Process For Taiwan Aug. 17, 19973

Making Same, and Products Containing Same,

Including Self-Stick Repositionable Notes

337-TA-372 Certain Neodymium-Iron-Boron Magnets, Magnet People’s Republic May 20, 20053

Alloys, and Articles Containing Same of China, Hong Kong,

Taiwan

337-TA-374 Certain Electrical Connectors and Products Taiwan Jan. 22, 2008

Containing Same

337-TA-376 Certiain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Germany Feb. 1, 20113

Components Thereof

337-TA-378 Certain Asian-Style Kamaboko Fish Cakes Japan Nonpatent

1 This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the investigation.

2 Multiple dates indicate the expiration dates of separate patents within the investigation.

3 Patent term extended pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(c).

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission, Office of Unfair Import Investigations.
mption of leading GSP-duty-free imports, 1996

(1,000 dollars)

Total U.S. Imports of GSP articles

imports for

cription consumption1 GSP-eligible2 GSP duty-free3

or, cartridge or cassette magnetic tape-type video 2,582,783 1,049,211 677,334 . . . . . . . . . . . 

e telephone sets with cordless handsets 1,441,569 719,529 666,622 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ception apparatus for radiotelephony, not capable of recording 860,077 529,966 379,294

oden (except bent-wood) furniture, other than seats 1,634,025 442,120 366,945 . . . . . . . . . 

w sugar not containing added flavoring or color 900,754 775,246 366,941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . diobroadcast receivers, nesi, including apparatus 493,653 338,086 285,032 . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ers of monohydric alcohols 859,127 224,701 212,433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ephone sets; videophones nesi 1,067,543 290,711 212,280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gical, medical clothing (including gloves) of vulcanized rubber 734,662 693,456 198,652rowave ovens 672,620 197,076 195,094 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

rochromium containing more than 3 percent of carbon 202,432 190,037 173,921 . . . . . . . 

ts of seats of a kind used for motor vehicles 437,211 193,169 163,094 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cator panels incorporating liquid crystal devices 759,773 243,438 161,082 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ephonic apparatus; intercom systems nesi 347,341 164,466 157,701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

holstery leather, of bovine and equine leather 357,879 175,186 145,926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

conditioning machines; window or wall types, self contained 395,021 144,662 142,592 . . 

tion wiring sets, other wiring sets of a kind used in vehicles, 

ircraft 3,733,386 478,197 134,727 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

dio tape player combinations 1,688,066 350,744 132,082 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cles of jewelry, parts, of silver, whether or not plated or lad, nesi 347,318 135,535 121,706 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

rosilicon manganese 187,881 120,854 120,854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total, above items 19,703,122 7,456,390 5,014,312 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total, all GSP items 281,460,050 29,839,352 16,921,952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

o the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

how total imports of the top 20 products reported under an HTS subheading that establishes eligibility for duty-free treatment under

asons, all imports from beneficiary countries that are “eligible” for GSP do not always necessarily receive duty-free GSP treatment.

y not actually receive GSP duty-free treatment for at least four types of reasons: (1) the importer fails to claim GSP benefits

ts are from a beneficiary country that has lost GSP on that product or category for exceeding the so-called “competitive need”

from a beneficiary country that has lost GSP on that product because of a petition to remove that country from GSP for that

rts fail to meet the rules of origin or direct shipment requirements in the GSP statute. 

how the total imports of the top 20 products that actually received duty-free treatment under the GSP program.

ng, figures may not add to the totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
mption and imports eligible for GSP treatment, by import categories under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS),

(Million dollars)

Total U.S. Imports of GSP articlesimports for

ion consumption1 GSP-eligible2 GSP duty-free3

mals; animal products 10,283 167 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

e products 11,578 771 153 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

or vegetable fats, and waxes 1,573 49 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d foodstuffs, beverages, and tobacco 16,046 1,810 830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

products 75,037 97 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 of the chemical and allied industries 41,563 1,225 741 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

and rubber, and articles thereof 20,932 1,766 923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d skins; leather and articles thereof; travel goods, handbags,

milar containers 6,721 547 394 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

of wood, cork, or plaiting material 11,951 1,196 677 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

lp; paper, paperboard, and articles thereof 16,978 182 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

and textile articles 48,891 226 148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

r, and headgear, and artificial flowers 14,559 364 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

of stone or ceramics; glass and glassware 7,890 541 470 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

recious stones and metals; jewelry; coin 17,084 1,405 484 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

tals and articles of base metal 42,597 2,554 1,707 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ry and mechanical appliances; electrical equipment; parts and

sories thereof 239,635 12,738 7,303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 aircraft, and other transport equipment 120,046 916 706 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

photographic, measuring, and medical apparatus; clocks

atches; musical instruments 26,950 1,509 506 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d ammunition; parts and accessories 597 33 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

neous manufactured articles 28,040 1,736 1,401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 art, collectors’ pieces and antiques 2,772 - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

classification provisions 25,904 - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

above items 787,628 29,832 16,922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

o the U.S. Virgin Islands.

how total imports, by sector, that are reported under an HTS provision that establishes eligibility for duty-free entry under GSP.

all imports from beneficiary countries under HTS provisions that appear to be “eligible” for GSP do not always necessarily receive

P. Such “eligible” imports may not actually receive duty-free entry under GSP for at least 4 types of reasons: (1) the importer fails

rmatively; (2) the goods are from a beneficiary country that has lost GSP benefits on that product for exceeding the so-called

(3) the goods are from a beneficiary country that has lost GSP benefits on that product because of a petition to remove that

 product; and (4) the goods fail to meet the rule of origin or direct shipment requirements of the GSP statute. 

show the total imports, by sector, that actually received duty-free entry under the GSP.

ng, figures may not add to the totals shown.

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
mption of leading imports under CBERA, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

dity 1994 1995 1996

ar not containing added flavoring or color (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 127,475 240,394

r uppers, other than formed, of leather 219,360 186,753 194,789 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

heroots and cigarillos, each valued 23¢ or over 50,073 74,815 154,951 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

and parts of precious metal except silver, except necklaces and clasps 139,224 142,386 134,610 . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 surgical, or dental instruments and appliances 92,555 119,831 80,475 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gar to be used for the production (other than distillation) of polyhydric alcohols (2 . . . . . ) 9,289 76,022

l (methyl alcohol), nesi 54,617 40,849 67,144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

pes, fresh, not entered Aug. 1-Sept. 15 343,963 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,419 62,912

 rods, hot-rolled, not tempered or treated 458,057 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,279 60,491

ured ethyl alcohol for nonbeverage purposes 47,450 54,139 59,905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 chilled fish, including sable, ocean perch, snapper, grouper, and monkfish 34,989 34,963 45,739 . . . . . . . . . 

es, fresh or dried, not reduced in size, in crates or other packages 35,885 35,240 43,017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s, electrical splices and couplings 31,086 37,201 41,320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

oneless beef, except processed (5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 45,293 37,359

ermic hair dryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,99 42,923 36,830

ircuit assemblies for telephonic apparatus for switching or terminal

atus, nesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 35,938

c circuit breakers, for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 V 0 34,725 33,975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

olasses, nesi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,435 14,936 33,886

 chilled boneless beef, except processed (6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 51,598 33,403

 for electrical apparatus for voltage not exceeding 1,000 V,

ing motor starter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,917 31,892 32,236

oncentrated orange juice 14,483 19,095 31,571 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

motive gaskets, washers, and seals of vulcanized rubber 16,211 24,687 25,862 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s and softballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,100 21,886 21,896

elons if not entered June 1-Nov. 30 721,123 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,502 21,621

nwoven disposable apparel designed for use in hospitals (8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 15,705 21,001

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946,466 1,299,880 1,627,349

ll commodities 2,050,158 2,261,407 2,791,055 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 1701.11.01 part. cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 1701.11.02 part and 1701.11.03 part. cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 0807.10.20. cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 7213.31.30 and 7213.41.30. cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 0202.30.60 part. cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 0201.30.60 part. cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 0807.10.70. cts under this HTS were reported under HTS 6210.10.40.30.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
213

Table A-31

U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA provisions, by country, 1992-96

(1,000 dollars)

Rank Country 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1 Dominican Republic 567,738 657,673 751,028 845,356 932,413 . . . . . . 

2 Costa Rica 294,937 388,252 478,109 527,716 657,127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Guatemala 192,955 208,262 171,381 168,467 279,768 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Honduras 112,512 127,399 139,838 156,840 207,289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Trinidad and Tobago 44,695 44,602 142,901 144,247 184,895 . . . . . 6 Nicaragua 40,018 74,408 80,554 78,543 116,007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

7 Jamaica 48,156 76,496 69,316 87,330 95,965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 El Salvador 27,249 26,530 41,126 68,550 91,254 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Panama 23,753 38,524 35,141 39,357 51,352 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Guyana 1,202 1,246 13,100 17,409 32,285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

11 Haiti 19,151 33,378 15,770 26,522 30,223 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Belize 23,733 12,526 13,112 16,676 24,760 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Barbados 15,478 20,177 21,313 23,043 23,089 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Bahamas 93,324 167,110 45,062 22,854 20,765 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

15 St. Kitts and Nevis 14,172 15,986 17,220 18,776 19,241 . . . . . . . 16 St. Lucia 3,937 4,463 6,077 6,503 7,129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Netherlands Antilles 2,964 3,490 3,214 4,468 4,357 . . . . . . 18 Montserrat 41 271 886 1,488 3,962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

19 St. Vincent and Grenadines 165 233 1,299 2,527 3,580

20 Dominica 1,008 1,293 2,112 2,200 2,204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Antigua 324 1,110 809 1,683 1,615 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Grenada 1,081 144 768 724 1,007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

23 British Virgin Islands 68 17 11 12 631 . . . . . . 24 Aruba 10 21 12 114 138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total 1,528,690 1,903,613 2,050,158 2,261,407 2,791,055 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
214

Table A-32

U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by country, 1994-96

(1,000 dollars)

Rank Country 1994 1995 1996

1 Colombia 411,642 499,262 560,546 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2 Peru 107,430 207,569 385,298 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ecuador 72,905 147,859 218,419 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Bolivia 91,840 84,100 105,791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total 683,817 938,789 1,270,054 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
mption of leading imports under ATPA, 1994-96

 (1,000 dollars)

dity 1994 1995 1996

hemums, standard carnations, anthuriums and orchids 121,036 147,875 161,918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

resh cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,475 126,897 156,039

d chain for jewelry, of precious metal except silver 29,036 101,574 100,841 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

s and sections of cathodes of refined copper 8,239 11,995 91,749 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ers and flower buds suitable for bouquets, nesi 45,187 64,388 81,386 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

d skipjack, not in airtight containers. 13,802 36,524 57,933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

of jewelry and parts thereof of precious metal except silver,

 necklaces and clasps 85,205 46,810 57,383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ar not containing added flavoring or color (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 31,860 54,635

e (spray) carnations, fresh cut 24,391 32,360 36,035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

esive plates, sheets, film, foil, strip 28,260 29,967 33,598 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

cklaces and neck chains of gold 9,351 13,966 29,033 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ht zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,782 7,028 21,894

semimanufactured form, except gold leaf 0 329 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,654

us, fresh or chilled, not reduced in size, not entered Sept. 15-Nov. 15 8,760 12,868 15,285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

es, sheets, strip and foil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 15,112

 chilled fish, including sable, ocean perch, snapper, grouper, and

sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,055 19,174 14,471

cklaces and neck chains, other than rope or mixed link 10,493 10,926 11,676 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ead, unwrought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,114 12,982 11,335

golf bags, travel bags, sports bags, and cases 6,093 9,272 11,249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

mimanufactured forms of nonmonetary gold (3) (3) 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,875

of wood, including pencil slats and others (4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 10,682 10,166

ons ready for consumption (5) (5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) 9,169

of gold, including metal clad with gold 0 0 9,115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

runks, suitcases, vanity cases, and briefcases 9,431 9,097 7,497 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, not entered June 1-Aug. 31 3,070 4,236 6,948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

f items shown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,780 740,810 1,033,997

ll commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683,817 938,789 1,270,054

s reported under HTS 1701.11.01 part. 

mports under HTS 7108.13.50 were split between HTS 7108.13.55 and 7108.13.70. 

996, products under this HTS were reported under HTS 7108.13.50 part. 

s reported under HTS 4421.90.95 part. s reported under HTS 1704.90.20 part.

ng, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation, nesi, stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

fficial statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.